Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2007 April 2

< April 1	April 3 >

Guide to deletion

Purge server cache

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. --Core desat 04:45, 7 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Daniel Mirante[edit]

Although this article about a visionary artist claims notability, there are no independent reliable sources that substantiate any of the information here, hence this article fails WP:NOTE. Google for <"Daniel Mirante"> (with quotes) finds 59 results, none from reliable sources and all mention the subject very briefly. [1] Search for <"Daniel Mirante" "Journal of Cosmic Play"> gets 5 results - the journal itself, Wikipedia, and a blog. [2] JSTOR, Factiva and LexisNexis turn up no results. Resurgent insurgent 00:30, 2 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Visual arts-related deletions. – Alf^Photoman 20:30, 2 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete unless reliable sources are added before close of AfD. WP:COI issues exist. janejellyroll 00:31, 2 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete fails WP:BIO, WP:COI, unlikely to be reliably sourced Hornandsoccer ^Talk 01:08, 2 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete there are no sources used in the article and it as created by a user with the same name as the article subject (WP:COI). Darth griz⁹⁸ 01:21, 2 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per Hornandsoccer. Sr13 (T|C) 01:53, 2 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Fails WP:BIO and WP:V--Dacium 04:04, 2 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Per nom and above comments. Seicer (talk) (contribs) 06:11, 2 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete- fails to meet the critera of WP:BIO Thunderwing 08:26, 2 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per above - fails WP:BIO and not likely to be sourced. - Anas ^talk? 11:36, 2 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per everyone else. Acalamari 16:58, 2 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete unless backed up by non-trivial secondary sources by end of this AfD. As is fails WP:A and WP:BIO Special Cases Alf^Photoman 20:41, 2 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hello I am considered by many artists within the field as a valuable contributor to the visionary art scene. Right now the visionary art scene is somewhat esoteric, so unless you take the time to research it you may not appreciate my contributution.

I have written the wiki entry on visionary art and many of the practicing artists there have wiki entries. I have added a wiki entry for myself and it appears 'resurgent insurgent' has it in for me for some reason. This entry is simply to contexturise my work within the visionary art scene. I'm not 'self advertising'. Most of the projects I have conducted within the visionary art movement have been to bring more attention to artists in this scene.

I have been published in several journals considered important to the contemporary visionary art scene. These include 'The Visionary Revue' at visionaryrevue.com (check the page to see the high profile of my projects'. The famous visionary artist Oleg Korolev has claimed that the www.lila.info project, run by myself, represents best the current scene as it stands.

I have published several unique interviews with the representatives of the visionary art movement and also produced historical and theoretical contexturisations of the scene. Only two other people, Laurence Caruana and Jon Beinart, are involved in this work.

I am also an apprentice of the famous artist Brigid Marlin www.brigidmarlin.com... she runs the Society for Art of the Imagination, which is considered one of the most important organisations in the visionary art scene. I have written several articles and had work published in the Inscape magazine which is one of the only regular journals to cover the visionary art movement. My membership to ths society can be verified with Brigid Marlin or my work viewed on the societies site.

I have had work published by Elfintome which is the West coast flagship for the visionary art movement.

Basically, I feel foolish by these neccesary self-justifications but I feel my integrity and intention is being questioned by this action to remove my existence from Wikipedia. My work is considered important by people within this fledgling scene, but I can understand from the perspective of someone who knows nothing about this movement that my wiki entry may seem pointless. But is that fair to judge unless someone is aware of this scene in detail ? I don't go to areas of wiki that I know little about and then question peoples relevance or the integrity of their work.

Daniel Mirante

Danielmirante 12:24, 3 April 2007 (UTC)

Ok, so looking at the big red signs pasted onto the wiki entry in my name, and surveying the objections to the wikipedia guidelines (which do say "is not set in stone and should be treated with common sense"... and "is a guideline, not a policy", I had my partner the editted wikipedia entry, so it no longer conforms to 'autobiography', nor does it fall under biography because it is not a life review. It is a discussion of a participant in the visionary art scene and is intended to be an informational source on my work.

Just because the 'judges' of this entry may not be aware of the field under discussion here does not give grounds for deletion, since this would be an act of deletion through a prejudice toward subject matter... or rather ignorance of subject matter ... visionary art may be irrelevant to you but this is not the basis on which information should be deleted from wikipedia.

Also, 'lack of reliable sources', I want to know what 'reliable' means as this is not quantified by wiki.

Resurgent Insurgent is wrong about 'lack of reliable sources' - there are several websites (www.elfintome.com, www.lila.info, www.visionaryrevue.com, www.artofimagination.org etc) and publications that carry my work, and I am the apprentice of a painter who is acknowledged as a visionary master artist. What is so unreliable about this ? You may never have heard of my work but the people involved in the scene under discussion have.

Similarly my friend has provided avenues to verify the existence of my art career and writings, which may be of no personal interest or relevance to you, but will be to people interested in visionary art.

Wikipedia has room to grow... it is not a paper encyclopedia. If it is useful to the people concerned with visionary art then let it be !

Best Daniel Mirante

80.229.40.235 15:36, 3 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Quote by Oleg Korolev, visionary art master

"By the way such art enthusiasts as Brigid Marlin ( and her "Society of Art of Imagination"), Jon Beinart ( and this forum) and Keith Wigdor ("Surrealism Now") , Daniel Mirante ( lila.info ), actually represent this movement now ... AND THAT IS ALL...! "

http://www.koro-art.com/ http://surrealartforum.com/viewtopic.php?t=1017

15:51, 3 April 2007 (UTC)

Painting of Daniel Mirante by Brigid Marlin , founder of the Society of Art of Imagination

http://brigidmarlin.com/Pages/CatholicMysteries/Resurrection.html

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. --Core desat 04:46, 7 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Paul Arbour[edit]

Clearly fails WP:BIO - can come back if he gets elected to Provincial office - Delete Bridgeplayer 00:38, 2 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. Resurgent insurgent 00:42, 2 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete fails WP:BIO, probable violation of WP:COI (see history) can be recreated later if he wins something bigger Hornandsoccer ^Talk 01:07, 2 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete WP:BIO failure--Dacium 04:05, 2 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Per nom and above comments. Recreate if held in higher, more notable position. Seicer (talk) (contribs) 06:11, 2 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Although the nom and others have got some rather basic facts wrong (he has just been nominated for a federal riding, not a provincial one, and his nomination is for the next election, not the last one), he hasn't won yet and doesn't pass WP:BIO. (In fact, he was just nominated to run against the Minister of Defence a week ago.) --Charlene 14:25, 2 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete not notable at the moment. Acalamari 16:59, 2 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. --Core desat 04:47, 7 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Ybarra Elementary School[edit]

An editor suggested I take this to AfD, so I am doing so. Without the irrelevant details about current faculty, this "article" consists of a one-line description. Without sources or claims to notability it appears to be unable to be expanded beyond this. There are many things in the world that exist, but Wikipedia is not a catalog of them. Salad Days 02:48, 27 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom, NN school. TJ Spyke 08:07, 27 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. It's stubby but if "Its' A.P.I. score was over 900 for 4 consecutive years." can be verified, I think it might be worth keeping. - Mgm|^(talk) 12:27, 27 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep once again: ALL SCHOOLS are notable. The infancy of this article is not grounds for deletion. Allow the seed to grow. Jerry 21:52, 1 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

If you look at the history of the editor who created the article, you might be less optimistic that it will grow, at least any time soon. I'm all for giving people time, but only if I've got some indication that there's someone out there who will actually improve the article. I see no evidence of that. What I see is a potential vandal magnet. It can always be recreated.Noroton 05:04, 2 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, WjBscribe 01:00, 2 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: The concept that "all schools are notable" is a position held by a faction of editors that is neither enshrined, either explicitly or implicitly, in any policy or guideline, and that one of the hallmarks of this curious notion is that such articles be exempt from any standard of verification or attribution. It certainly isn't anything by which tacit eyerolling at how dense we are is merited. As far as this particular school goes, its claims are unsourced and unsupported, and it hasn't been worked on since its creation. RGTraynor 13:25, 2 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. A school is subject to the exact same notability guidelines as anything else here on WP. Jerry, note that this article has been around for just about three months - it could have been expanded in that time. As an aside, the article is badly written - though, that's not a criteria for deletion unto itself, it's a criteria for cleanup. --Dennisthe2 02:41, 2 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep if reliable sources can be provided regarding API scores before the close of this debate. Yamaguchi先生 03:24, 2 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete WP:V failure, which leads to it not having WP:N--Dacium 04:06, 2 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete unless sourcing was provided as per Yamaguchi's comment, in which case I'd change my vote. Noroton 05:01, 2 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Per nom and above comments. A short one-line zinger. Seicer (talk) (contribs) 06:12, 2 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Not noteable. Dalejenkins 08:22, 2 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Schools-related deletions. -- Noroton 15:27, 2 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete There is no consensus at Wikipedia that all schools are or are not inherently notable, as evidenced by the many AfDs closed at "keep", "delete" and "no consensus". Since there is no special dispensation for school articles, they have to pass WP:A and WP:N to be retained, and this one does not. --Butseriouslyfolks 17:24, 2 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I believe all post-secondary schools are notable and that most secondary schools are as well. However, I believe few primary schools are. TonyTheTiger (talk/cont/bio) 19:26, 2 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete nn school, clear-cut case. DES ^(talk) 20:41, 2 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, not suitable for WP in its current state. --Sn0wflake 22:59, 2 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as failing the standards of notability to which all article subjects (schools included) are subject. The "API score" thing might be a point of notability, but it's unsourced at the moment. What does it mean, anyway? BigHaz - Schreit mich an 09:14, 3 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, all efforts at coming up with consensus guidelines for school notability have failed to date. I tend to think that all colleges and universities will be able to meet the primary notability guidelines, but am extremely dubious about any "all" arguments for anything beyond that. This does not meet the primary notability criteria for articles, not to mention WP:ATT/WP:V, and as such, should be deleted. Xtifr _tälk 21:38, 3 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Assume that more information can be added. Hmwith 10:03, 4 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: An encyclopedia with pretentious to accuracy and utility can't "assume" anything, and WP:ATT doesn't permit it. RGTraynor 02:57, 5 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: Just not notable, unsourced, too chatty (POV), too short, and too difficult to work with. Who is it named for? Is there any trivia related to the school? Does it meet the Google test? Has anyone notable ever graduated from this school? Does every school in the US have to be listed? Bearian 00:10, 5 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. The article does not describes the subject. "Introduction" is poor and it should be rewritten (that means, the whole article should be rewritten). Meanwhile, it does not meet criteria for keeping. Rjgodoy 12:15, 6 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was Merge and redirect --Bubba hotep 09:35, 7 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Craig D. Calam[edit]

Non Notable Person make no other accomplishments other than as a supporting cast member on the Uncle Floyd Show They call me Mr. Pibb 00:29, 27 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

This AfD nomination was incomplete. It is listed now. DumbBOT 09:13, 27 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Non notable regional performer StuartDouglas 10:13, 27 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep regular cast member in a very notable show. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 13:15, 27 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Merge merge with the Uncle Floyd Show DCUnitedFan2011 12:24, 31 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, WjBscribe 01:00, 2 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Merge and Redirect to The Uncle Floyd Show. Not notable enough for own article.--Dacium 04:08, 2 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Merge and redirect: To The Uncle Floyd Show, per above comments. Performer non-notable by himself. Seicer (talk) (contribs) 06:13, 2 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Merge and redirect: To The Uncle Floyd Show, per above comments. Poeloq 08:42, 2 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Merge and redirect as above. Myself, I wouldn't characterize a local broadcast offering available only through a couple stations in the NYC area as a "very notable show." I can't think of many examples of such shows where its cast members had notability beyond mention of the shows themselves. Ravenswing 13:33, 2 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Merge and redirect per everyone who also said to merge and redirect. Acalamari 17:00, 2 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep the man paid his dues in television and should be recognized for it especially since he is now deceased. BobCrayson 08:21, 3 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: Wikipedia is not a memorial. Ravenswing 13:24, 3 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: I agree with Ravenswing Wikipedia is not a memorial and after thinking about this I would not be opposed to a Merge and Redirect with the The Uncle Floyd Show article. They call me Mr. Pibb 06:28, 4 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was NO CONSENSUS. Even the deleters don't sound terribly convinced of the case. -Splash - tk 15:47, 8 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The Carnival Band[edit]

Non-notable band per WP:MUSIC. The mentions in reliable publications are trivial; other sources are self-published. RJASE1 ^Talk 13:29, 27 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, WjBscribe 01:00, 2 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Weak Delete Does not seem to be enough for WP:MUSIC, there are no sources of non triviality, just mentions in local papers about them playing somewhere. did not tour nationally etc.--Dacium 04:14, 2 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Weak keep: Does need a rewrite but I did find some basic information through a Google search. Needs information regarding tours other than the one-line zinger. Seicer (talk) (contribs) 06:14, 2 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

~~Delete~~ Weak Delete as per nom and Dacium. Springnuts 06:32, 2 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, has enough notability. --Sn0wflake 23:01, 2 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Weak Keep - We're clearly into the realms of the obscure and specialist interest lobby here, but there is just enough non trivial coverage available to meet WP:Music. A1octopus 23:14, 4 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep has sufficient notability. Kukini ^{hablame aqui} 00:35, 7 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Fails WP:MUSIC quite clearly. There is no non-trivial coverage that I can see. It's all press clippings from local papers. Nothing more than their name, a photo, and that they played at such-and-such location. Half of the press section in the article is about other bands that are similar. Rookwood^{Dept. of Mysteries} 15:18, 7 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. They've toured Europe and played on the East Coast. This is sufficient for WP:BAND. Herostratus 06:34, 8 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. --Core desat 04:48, 7 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Carr Creek elementary school[edit]

Not notable Epbr123 14:21, 27 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Schools-related deletions. -- Noroton 16:08, 27 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
weak keep The school seems to be notably effective in science--at least I think that's what I think it's trying to say. I haven't seen an article before suggesting notability of the basis of what conferences the teachers went to. Notable teachers do make a school notable, and this might be a good direction for those writing articles on the subject to try--although I don't think this particular instance is sufficient for that. If sources are supplied, I'd accept this article. DGG 23:56, 27 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Weak Delete pending verification and attribution of sufficient awards. --Butseriouslyfolks 01:48, 29 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, WjBscribe 01:00, 2 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Weak delete echoing User:Butseriouslyfolks. They assert notability, but they don't have links. Change my mind. --Dennisthe2 02:42, 2 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Knott County, Kentucky. We already have a guideline in place for this, WP:LOCAL, we do not need to be repeatedly flooding AFD with these. Yamaguchi先生 03:22, 2 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Has not be able to verify notibility (which was extremely weak to begin with).--Dacium 04:17, 2 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
~~Delete~~Redirect (I missed Yamaguchi's comments until after I hit the edit button. I strongly agree with him. Best solution) no one but us is paying attention to it. It's ripe for vandalism. Someone searching for information on the school would probably be better satisfied through a search engine than by looking at this article. Not even a deletion discussion has attracted any local supporters. Noroton 04:42, 2 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Unverified information, non-notable school. Yeah, it has won awards, but so have dozens of other schools in the state. Seicer (talk) (contribs) 06:15, 2 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep nomination falls squarely into Wikipedia:Arguments to avoid in deletion discussions ALKIVAR™ ☢ 06:28, 2 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Why is that a reason to keep?! Its obvious why it isn't notable. Epbr123 10:13, 2 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep I am somewhat inclusionist about schools and so would tend towards keep in any case, however imo passes notability tests. Springnuts 06:36, 2 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete or Redirect Non-notable school. TJ Spyke 07:34, 2 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete or Redirect As per nom. Dalejenkins 08:16, 2 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete non-notable school, fails WP:ATT, no sourcing at all. Odds that the article will be improved are near to zero, given that it is the sole Wikipedia activity of the creator, and that much nearly five months ago. (Quite aside from anything else, I'm unimpressed with the use of "Arguments to avoid in deletion discussions," an essay representing the opinion of its authors which is neither policy, guideline nor consensus, as a citation.) Ravenswing 15:30, 2 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Weak Delete Conceivably it is notable, but there is no source whatever to demonstrate it. If they have been doing as well as claimed, here should be something. DGG 02:35, 3 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Weak Keep Requires sourcing, but passes notability. Kukini ^{hablame aqui} 00:38, 7 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was keep. - Mailer Diablo 04:51, 7 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The Upwelling[edit]

The subject of the article does not meet the guidelines for notability per WP:MUSIC Nv8200p talk 14:29, 27 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, WjBscribe 01:00, 2 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Weak Keep the band does have outside reliable sources and is touring with the notable band Third Eye Blind, but it does need a few more sources. Darth griz⁹⁸ 01:30, 2 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Weak Delete Where does it pass WP:MUSIC. 2 reviews from web-zines and touring with Third Eye Blind is not a tour for WP:MUSIC standards.--Dacium 04:38, 2 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Properly cited notable accomplishments so that they pass I believe. TonyTheTiger (talk/cont/bio) 19:44, 2 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, as it does assert notability. --Sn0wflake 23:02, 2 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep -asserts notability with citation. --Kukini ^{hablame aqui} 00:41, 7 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was redirect to Battlelore. --Core desat 04:50, 7 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Kaisa Jouhki[edit]

No assertion of notability per WP:MUSIC for an independent article. Nv8200p talk 15:21, 27 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Replace it with a redirect to "Battlelore." None of the other members appear to have pages, and she doesn't seem to be individually notable. You can delete first if needed. -MrFizyx 06:24, 31 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, WjBscribe 01:00, 2 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Battlelore - there is nothing in the article to assert notability beyond her connection to that band Hornandsoccer ^Talk 20:52, 2 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Battlelore - this individual does not seem to have notability or fame other than as a member of this band. A1octopus 15:53, 4 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. —Cryptic 01:22, 7 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Teovina[edit]

The subject of the article does not meet the guidelines for notability per WP:MUSIC. Nv8200p talk 15:31, 27 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. Vaguely 20:07, 28 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, WjBscribe 01:01, 2 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete YouTube-only artist. NawlinWiki 03:45, 2 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete No notibility. Not Verifiable out side of it self since no reliable sources--Dacium 04:41, 2 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Article could be cleaned up, but it should not be deleted. Just because she is a on Youtube doesn't mean she doesn't deserve an article. Can we please cut the snobbiness?--Darth Borehd 01:08, 7 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. Disregarding single-purpose accounts, the arguments for deletion are stronger than those for keeping. There was nothing presented to satisfy WP:ATT and WP:RS. --Core desat 04:53, 7 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The Filthy Truth[edit]

If you came here because someone asked you to, or you read a message on another website, please note that this is not a majority vote, but instead a discussion among Wikipedia contributors. Wikipedia has policies and guidelines regarding the encyclopedia's content, and consensus (agreement) is gauged based on the merits of the arguments, not by counting votes.

However, you are invited to participate and your opinion is welcome. Remember to assume good faith on the part of others and to sign your posts on this page by adding ~~~~ at the end.

Note: Comments may be tagged as follows: suspected single-purpose accounts: {{subst:spa|username}}; suspected canvassed users: {{subst:canvassed|username}}; accounts blocked for sockpuppetry: {{subst:csm|username}} or {{subst:csp|username}}.

A web mailing list that doesn't seem to meet the guidelines laid out in WP:WEB. Googling only brings up about 600 ghits, almost all of which are irrelevant. This article fails WP:ATT and is not verifiable through reliable secondary sources. The current references consist of a forum mention and a copy of something from the mailing list itself. The article has been tagged with the "verify" tag since November and no improvements have been made to it. Delete as such. Wickethewok 15:36, 27 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per WP:WEB, and the only sources are from forums... bad sign. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 19:16, 27 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, WjBscribe 01:01, 2 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. A mailing list has to prove that it's notable, which is admittedly hard. At the time of this edit, there are two links that don't prove notability. --Dennisthe2 02:43, 2 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Sourced by a mention on a forum, no reliable sources. No notibility, Not verifiable as its now private.--Dacium 04:43, 2 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep TFT remains to be one of the most influential mailing lists in the games industry. Anyone may join if they are proposed and seconded and the so-called exclusive nature of the list is little more than mythical. MrMarmite 21:42, 2 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep A proposal to delete clearly shows a lack of knowledge of the significance of this mailing list. ACarPark 21:52, 2 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Personal testimony really isn't worth much. Do you have any sources to back up your claims? Wickethewok 23:20, 2 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep This list is very well known to those who work in the games development industry, particularly those who came from or worked in the UK or US. The mere fact that those outside of the games development industry don't know about it or cannot find it on Google doesn't mean this article should be deleted. This site is after all a repository of knowledge and I would have thought because some knowledge is not well known by the general population but is also entirely accurate is good reason that it should be kept for future generations. Before anyone tries to claim personal testimony isn't worth much then I say they should reconsider because the personal testimony of someone with qualifications in a relevant field is actually worth something. My credentials as a games developer are as follows: http://www.mobygames.com/developer/sheet/view/developerId,99935/ Fnagaton 23:45, 2 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Per WP:ATT, Articles need to be based on independent reliable sources, regardless of who vouches for the supposed notability of something. Wickethewok 00:38, 3 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
A source doesn't always have to be a link on the internet. Fnagaton 01:16, 3 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Quite true. But you've failed to bring up any print sources either. Wickethewok 04:23, 3 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Print sources and internet sources are not the only sources either. You wouldn't dismiss that a public speaking event happened just because you had not been there to witness it in person would you? You do have the ability to take personal testimony from an expert in a relevant field as a source don't you? You can contact me directly to verify what I write here. Fnagaton 09:31, 3 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Weak Keep as Probably notable, with understanding about the difficulty of sourcing, but at least something could be added about N people who regularly post there. DGG 02:37, 3 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep as one of the original contributors to the body text of the Filthy Truth entry, it was decided to keep the wiki entry short and simple. too many wikipedia entries have become bloated and over-edited. the reason this page has not been updated in so long is that it says everything it needs to say, that are many much larger wiki entries that have less worth than this humble page. The Filthy Truth is more than a mailing list, its an online community that has had a huge impact on the games industry itself, the fact that it is one of the few places Games Developers can talk openly is one of it largest apeals to members. Many of the other places that the games industry communicate ( and where the Filty Truth is well known )are heavily monitored by the larger games companies ( Sony, Microsoft, EA ) and the ability to help others is limited for fear of reprisals. the Filthy Truth has contributed greatly to the development of hundreds of Video games that are listed in Wikipedia, please allow the people who made these games to also have a small place here too, and a little recognition. MrStarslayer 04:07, 3 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep TFT, although private, is an important mailing list for people involved in games development. If Wikipedia is to fulfil its aim of being a comprehensive online encyclopaedia, it must include all information, not just that which is well known or easy to find. A short article on TFT takes up very little space, and provides information on another aspect of the business and politics that goes with game development.Molesworth 08:29, 3 April 2007 (UTC)Molesworth — Molesworth (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]
- Might want to check out WP:ABOUTEVERYTHING for a good reason. --Dennisthe2 21:47, 3 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep The Filthy Truth remains an important part of the UK games industry subculture. It has been around for years, has hundreds of members and because of its active stream of information, debate & news will probably be around for many years more.152.114.1.10 08:56, 3 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment The currently listed Yahoo directory for The Filthy Truth displays a total membership of 110. Cheers, Lankybugger ○ Yell ○ 18:31, 5 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete no sources that can verify its notability +Hexagon1 ^(t) 09:14, 3 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been added to the list of CVG deletions. — Kaustuv Chaudhuri (via) 13:51, 3 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Unfortunately, there's no sources in the article. Any searching for sources is pretty well fruitless, as "The filthy truth" is a common enough phrase that even tossing qualifiers into the search term doesn't yield verifiable results. As word of mouth doesn't count as a verifiable source, I would suggest that those arguing for the article being kept find actual sources. Cheers, Lankybugger ○ speak ○ see ○ 18:20, 3 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- "No sources in the article"? There are sources, I for one am a personal source and relevant industry expert. The article itself has http://www.firq.cwc.net/filthy.htm and http://www.answers.com/topic/james-poole Fnagaton 22:39, 3 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  - Oh, sorry. To clarify: There's nothing that meets the policy-defined concept of a reliable source. You might also want to check out the policy on verifiability. To sum it up: You are not a reliable source. Neither is a reposting of a forum thread, and Answers.com relies heavily on Wikipedia itself for it's content. Something which would be required is an article (as in published as content, not in forums) ON The Filthy Truth in a publication like EGM or on a site like IGN or 1UP.com. Cheers, Lankybugger ○ speak ○ see ○ 23:55, 3 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    - You are incorrect to try to dismiss my reliability because you have made no attempt to contact me in person to verify me as a source despite you having more than enough information to do so. I've been in the games industry for over ten years, I find it deplorable that you should attempt to dismiss an expert in a relevant field. According to your rules on reliable sources I am a primary source. Fnagaton 00:32, 4 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
      - No - you are not a reliable source. Period. Even if you are who you say you are, even if those are your credentials, and even if those credentials qualified you to verify this article, interviewing you for the purposes of editing this article would be WP:OR on our part. You would only qualify as a source if you had been interviewed and published by a reliable and independent entity, and anything you say would need to be confirmed by another reliable and independant source. All industries have secret gatherings and in-jokes - that doesn't mean that any of these are suitable for Wikipedia. Please read WP:ATT and understand it. Delete for failing WP:V - CosmicPenguin (Talk) 01:42, 4 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
        "Even if you are who you say you are"? What rubbish. For your information I have been "interviewed and published by a reliable and independent entity" more than once and that is something you would have found out if you had checked the sources I have already given. Fnagaton 07:11, 4 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
        Look, just read the Wikipedia policies I directed you to. I have no doubts you are an established professional with years of experience. I am not calling this into question. The problem is that sources need to meet verifiability standards. We can't treat you as a source because we'd be running off of your word alone. If we used you as a source, there's no guarantee that someone reading the article three months down the line could contact you to verify your claims, let alone a year or two years down the line. All good articles in Wikipedia have sources which can be investigated by anyone reading them, and at lease one source is REQUIRED for any article. You are not a source as defined by policy, though I'm certain you could contribute a fair amount of knowledge on this subject, as well as many other subjects. Cheers, Lankybugger ○ speak ○ see ○ 13:35, 4 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
        I have read the policies you posted and I don't see anything in them that would merit removing the article since the article does describe something which is probably notable as described by DGG above. However nothing is guaranteed, for example nothing guarantees that any interview on any site will stay there for years. It was CosmicPenguin that made the dubious comments about "Even if you are who you say you are" and I responded to that insinuation because it is not true. Fnagaton 13:51, 4 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
        The conflict boils down to this: you require peer review, as well, especially if you are being a primary source. I will confess that, when somebody comes up and says something like "I'm a reliable source!", it sets up alarms all over the place - but that could be shellshock from participating in other rather...well, noisy AFDs. =^_^= Anyway, point being is that WP:RS doesn't exclude you, but now we have another issue - a mailing list is typically perceived as being little more than a means of communications for a group of people with a common interest, and I personally would compare it in notability to a conference room at an office - so to prove this list notable is, from what I can see, going to be a major struggle. So that said, you'll still have to change our minds. Good luck. --Dennisthe2 14:55, 4 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
        Thank you Dennisthe2, I knew WP:RS does not exclude me despite what some other above were claiming, this was my point. ;) So moving forward, would you agree that being "peer reviewed" in this instance would be a case of someone else with similar or better background in the games industry to corroborate what I've been saying? May I also assume from your comment that you don't particularly agree with the whole List of mailing lists? Fnagaton 16:38, 4 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
        As for the list, another primary would help, but if you're using people to vouch for the list, you need to have some other resources. Good question on the list of mailing lists as well, as it does bring up another point. The Linux Kernel Mailing List alone gets coverage at least on Slashdot - partially I think because Linus Torvalds still participates a bit in discussion, and of course, when Linus so much as farts, Slashdot listens. =^_^= Something like that for TFT would, I think, be a keeper. --Dennisthe2 18:30, 4 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
        This idea has legs and I will see what can be done about providing another primary. Fnagaton 15:21, 5 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
        
        For what it's worth, btw, I think CosmicPenguin's comment can probably be reinterpreted: anybody can say they are you, especially on the internet, and likewise, somebody to vouch for you online can come about at random as well (see WP:SOCK for a one example of this - not to say you're sockpuppeting, just demonstrating a point). This would be why we especially want a secondary and even a tertiary source for an expert vouching for something. If you can come up with something, this would be worth holding the AfD open a little longer, I think, if we have to - but that's just me. --Dennisthe2 21:22, 4 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
        Absolutely right. There is somebody out there in meatspace with those credentials, but we have no way of knowing if those credentials belong to the person posting with the username 'Fnagaton'. As we were recently reminded in a very public way, we cannot assume good faith about the credentials of anybody who posts here. That is why it is is so important that we get reliable sources. If somebody comes here and states "I am Dr. Somebody, I am an expert in this field, and you can trust me that this is true", then in order to use that as a reliable source, we have to somehow qualify Dr. Somebody as an expert - this is nearly impossible to do. But if the same poster came along and said "I am Dr. Somebody, I am an expert in this field, here is an article about it in the London Times" - then all anybody has to do to verify it is go to the London Times and read the article, and we don't care if the poster is Dr. Somebody or not, because we're not relying on them. Thats how the system works. You can take offense at all this if you wish, but many of us also happen to be professionals and experts in our respective fields, and yet not a single one of us enjoy the right to post freely without attributing our work. - CosmicPenguin (Talk) 03:42, 5 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
        "but we have no way of knowing if those credentials belong to the person posting with the username 'Fnagaton'" - You can use the contact details I have posted here and on my user page to send an email to my company (which you can also verify as being notable by doing a simple search) whereupon I will confirm that this user account and the "Martin Piper" who has been in the games industry for over ten years are in fact the same person. I've invited this kind of verifiable contact more than once on this page and nobody has yet done so.
        Perhaps you're not quite understanding the issue here. We don't care whether you are who you claim to be. That is not the issue. You could be and nobody's actively disputing that. However, policy requires us not to take this at face value. If you'd like to contribute your knowledge, you must do so via articles and interviews with Martin Piper which have been published elsewhere. We cannot take your word for this due to policy. You may not always be a wikipedia contributor and you may not always be accessible to those who've read the page and wish to verify the statements made. Because of THAT SPECIFIC REASON, you are not a source. Period. A source is something that anyone reading the article can check right then and there, without having to contact someone else and request clarification. A source is words written, or words spoken and recorded. An EGM article in which you give an interview, for example, will always be there. It doesn't require specific contact with you to flip open EGM issue for random month/random year and verify what you've said. That's what makes EGM a source, but not User:Fnagaton. Cheers, Lankybugger ○ speak ○ see ○ 14:04, 5 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
        I understand perfectly and it looks like you are wrong because you started off this trying to claim there are no reliable sources, to which I provided sources and myself as a source and as later pointed out by Dennisthe2 regarding WP:RS does not exclude me. You and others then tried to start claiming you couldn't verify who I am. I have given you more than enough information for you to verify who I am, my industry experience and my company notability. I am not expecting you to "take my word for this" but I do expect you to follow policy and to conduct the required checks you are meant to do from the information provided. What you are doing is continuing to post verifiability and to dismiss the information that does allow verifiability. It was it noted in the record that not one of those complaining about verifiability have actually made any effort to verify who I am because nobody has gone to my company website and emailed the company to try to make contact. It is your job to check and you are not doing it. By the way, at least one of the links in my user profile is a reliable source to a respected site that lists profiles of some of those working in the games industry and the information they post is peer reviewed and verified, that is how you get to my company website and then you can contact me through there to verify the facts posted here. Fnagaton 15:06, 5 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
        You've misinterpreted Dennisthe2's comments. Specifically, regarding you as a reliable source. By the strict definition of a reliable source, you would count. To quote WP:RS "Primary sources are documents or people very close to the situation you are writing about. An eyewitness account of a traffic accident published in a newspaper, and the White House's summary of a president's speech are primary sources." Both are not just "So and So said X to us on a Talk Page", but "So and So said X in a newspaper". Cheers, Lankybugger ○ speak ○ see ○ 15:36, 5 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
        I have not misrepresented Dennisthe2's comments and I demand that you retract that baseless accusation. I want it noted in the record that you are now avoiding the issue of your failure to properly verify the the information from the reliable sources that have been given. As such I submit that all of your comments about verifiability are discounted from this discussion until such time that you demonstrate you are going to comply with the policy. Fnagaton 16:06, 5 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
        Dude, chill! He didn't say misrepresented, he said misinterpreted! It's two different things, man! You may have misinterpreted, but that's not misrepresentation, it's just an honest mistake! --Dennisthe2 16:54, 5 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
        
        regarding this issue, the information at http://games.groups.yahoo.com/group/tft3/ proves that the list is current and has an active membership, and the Wiki entry simply explains what the list is. how is this any less notable than say the wikipedia entry http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_PS2_DVD9_games that has a list of playstation 2 games that are on the DVD-9 format? if you wish for secondary / tertiary varification of identities, then i invite you to join the group one day, and we can e-mail you from all the big games company names you'd care to mention. would that suffice as expert vouching? MrStarslayer 03:58, 5 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
        The issue is not notability, but verifiability. Arguments can easily be made for The Filthy Truth's notability. However, without sources to verify the notability, the article cannot remain on Wikipedia. Cheers, Lankybugger ○ speak ○ see ○ 14:07, 5 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
        It was a few posters up at the start who were writing about notability. Again you are trying to claim there are no sources when I have posted those sources. I further submit to you that until you make an effort to verify the facts posted you drop the issue of verifiability. Fnagaton 15:06, 5 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
        Again, I'll point out that forum postings, reposting forum postings, and Answers.com are not suitable sources which can be used for verification under current policy. To quote WP:V: "Anyone can create a website or pay to have a book published, then claim to be an expert in a certain field. For that reason, self-published books, personal websites, and blogs are largely not acceptable as sources." Even if the current home of The Filthy Truth would count as a source, it requires backup in the form of secondary sources, something even the most recent revision of the article lacks. And regarding me confirming the facts... The onus regarding any questioned items is for the user wishing to keep the questioned facts provide a source, not for the user wishing to remove the questionable item. Cheers, Lankybugger ○ speak ○ see ○ 15:36, 5 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
        Now you are misrepresenting the facts because you know full well that those are not the only sources that have been provided. I have bent over backwards to provide myself as a primary source and to vouch for this article. The onus is on you to check the facts provided, you have not done that check, therefore you have no logical reason to dismiss those facts. Fnagaton 16:12, 5 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
        It's like we said earlier, we still need the secondary sources. Look, I could conceivably phone you and talk to you, but I can't be that secondary source. Have you been interviewed by the major gaming or other mainstream press that verifies the notability of the list in something more than just passing comments? If yes, provide the information so we can verify, and we can work with that for a secondary. See the secondary list in WP:RS for what we need - that we lack this is what is stopping us from accepting your statements as a primary. --Dennisthe2 17:00, 5 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
        
        I'm prety sure that I also spoke of how to verify the sources in my last comment. perhaps you overlooked this. feel free to contact me ( myspace or gmail ) and you can come on to the list and talk to as many verifiable names in the industry as you like. the only reason no names are mentioned in the wiki article is to allow people a little anonimity, would putting the names of several willing people on to the page help? or would you also call them out as "non-verified source" and then not follow oportunities to help us verify them?MrStarslayer 15:44, 5 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
        It's not a matter of contacting you. That's never been the issue. I've cited Wikipedia:Reliable Sources several times and I invite you to read the policy very carefully because it goes hand-in-hand with my objection to the article: Wikipedia:Verifiability. There's no perfectly reliable way for any reader to contact you OR User:Fnagaton in regards to your claims to verify the information in the article. I'm not talking in the context of today, this week, or even necessarily within the next three months. If someone reads this article a year from now, there's no guarantee that either of you will still work in the field you do, that you will still post to The Filthy Truth, or that the contact information left as a reference will be accurate. Cheers, Lankybugger ○ speak ○ see ○ 16:51, 5 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
        I somehow feel that this is using the letter of the rules to spite the spirit of the rules. we're trying to provide you with everything that you need, yet the majority of the sources that can prove what you want are under direct control of the larger games companies and access to them come at the cost of working on a playstation or x-box game. this is why the Filthy Truth is as well known as it is amoung the games industry, its one of the only places where games developers can talk freely, and thus has merit here. there are many places on Wikipedia that have more dubious information, mostly unregulated, in particular the user profiles of the admin's and editors, do they get checked out via newspaper articles and press coverage as well? MrStarslayer 17:48, 5 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
        But we've already made it clear on what we need. It's like I said to Fnagaton, in summary: anybody can say you're you, and anyone else can vouch for that. That makes that unverifiable - and this is why we need that secondary source, and this is what prompts the constant references to WP:RS - the list is there. That is what we need. Sure, you can be a primary, but get a secondary source per that policy (i.e., not another person, but perhaps a published interview - and in this case, something that mentions the TFT list in more than just passing) to provide the vouching. --Dennisthe2 18:01, 5 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
        
        Check out WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS. I can identify with your frustration about the status of the article, but Wikipedia requires secondary sources to back up primary sources of information. As regards userpages, those are frequently policed though held to a lesser standard. The simple fact of the matter is that other items which might merit deletion get caught sooner or later, and the deletion of these articles is part of the process of dealing with a structure like this. Policy is strict on this matter: Articles need secondary sources to back up primary sources. Any article without secondary can be deleted if no secondary sources can be found. Cheers, Lankybugger ○ Yell ○ 18:08, 5 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The problem is Lankybugger is not applying WP:RS correctly, that is to say using the bolding to highlight one bit without considering the whole, (in comment 15:36, 5 April 2007 (UTC)) and I will show why. "Primary sources are documents or people very close to the situation you are writing about." : Note the full stop. "An eyewitness account of a traffic accident published in a newspaper, and the White House's summary of a president's speech are primary sources." : Note it does not say they are the only sources that can be used, obviously since there are more than two methods of reporting something. Also Lankybugger has been saying "It's not a matter of contacting you. That's never been the issue." and then proceeds to say "There's no perfectly reliable way for any reader to contact you" which leads to self contradiction since that user has been also trying to use "lack of contact" so the points of that user are inconsistent. WP:OR says it plainly "There is no firm definition of reliable, ... In general, ... As a rule of thumb....". Note the wording, it doesn't say reliable sources explicitly only come from only those things mentioned, the reliability of a source is more like a value judgement. DGG's comment appears to mirror this point of view. Fnagaton 22:30, 5 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom and above discussions.TheRingess (talk) 22:57, 5 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. - Mailer Diablo 04:52, 7 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Freshpair[edit]

Notability not established or sourced per WP:CORP, WP:WEB. WP:SPAM is also possibly applicable. RJASE1 ^Talk 17:20, 27 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, WjBscribe 01:01, 2 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to National Underwear Day which should be made a stub, since the day itself seems to be well known enough.--Dacium 04:50, 2 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
National Underwear Day redirects here per another AfD discussion. RJASE1 ^Talk 06:04, 2 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as spam. as above make 'National Underwear Day' into a stub. Springnuts 06:39, 2 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete nn internet store (Alexa rank 28,000+) and the article is almost entirely about National Underwear Day rather than Freshpair anyway. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 13:48, 2 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per everyone else. Acalamari 17:03, 2 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete unless some sources can be found. --J2thawiki 18:48, 3 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was Redirect --Bubba hotep 20:23, 7 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

SPANC[edit]

Card game that doesn't assert notability. Article is also unsourced. Google turned up a couple of reviews, but they can't be considered reliable. Delete per WP:ATT and WP:N-K@ngi e ^meep! 23:22, 27 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, WjBscribe 01:01, 2 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Well, the game's out there, and as near as I can tell, it's fun, but being out there and fun to play doesn't make it notable. Delete accordingly. --Dennisthe2 02:45, 2 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep or redirect to Steve Jackson Games. It is a real product, and can be described at the company's main page if a separate article is not warranted. FrozenPurpleCube 15:41, 2 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Much as I love the game, it's no longer in print (according to SJ's website) and obviously didn't make as much as an impact as, say, Illuminati. Cheesy fun while it lasted, but probably not deserving of an entire article that SJ Games and Phil Foglio's own webpages can do better and unfortunately not notable. Delete with a heavy heart. KaynSlamdyke 22:09, 2 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I don't think every card/board/video game ever deserves an article, or even a mention. And this one looks like it was not one of the most popular of its genre. Brianyoumans 00:37, 3 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Question So, do the folks calling for deletion oppose a redirect to Steve Jackson Games which already has a brief entry about this game? FrozenPurpleCube 14:58, 3 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

- Answer - No, a redirect would be fine. My !vote stands, but unless the GFDL forbids it, a delete and redirect would be OK IMHO. --Dennisthe2 15:08, 3 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- If there is something about SPANC already in the Steve Jackson article, I have no objection to a redirect. Brianyoumans 20:02, 3 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. - Mailer Diablo 04:52, 7 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Flash Video Player[edit]

An article about one web designer's script for embedding flash videos in web pages. There are many such scripts, I see nothing particularly notable about this one. --Mcoder 01:25, 2 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as advertising. No assertion of notability for this particular program. 23skidoo 02:13, 2 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as spam. — RevRagnarok ^{Talk Contrib} 14:12, 2 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. Seed 2.0 14:16, 2 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete spam. Acalamari 17:04, 2 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Weak Keep Contains useful information, and could be expanded a little more. This article is just like Windows Media Player, but sounds like an advertisement, which I don't like about it. Smcafirst | Chit-Chat | SIGN posted at 00:45, 5 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was Delete --Bubba hotep 20:29, 7 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Kris Potts[edit]

Contested prod, previously speedied as A7. Author claims notability. ˉˉ^anetode╦╩ 01:30, 2 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

comment He might be notable, though it is hard to tell from this article. It really should be taken in hand by somebody else or started over. DGG 03:22, 2 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete unless rewritten because the article right now is nothing but promotion and a gross NPOV violation. NawlinWiki 03:47, 2 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Rub it out for someone else to start again. If not COI, then a terrible sycophancy piece. Not wanted in either case. -- RHaworth 06:07, 2 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Reads like a possible copyvio text dump, though I wasn't able to confirm that. In any case, it's a NPOV mess. --NMChico24 06:38, 2 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
delete Might well be - probably is - wiki-notable, so my heart says keep, but my head says article is unsalvageable as above. Springnuts 06:46, 2 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - may well be notable but is nothing like a wikipedia article at present. Maybe reduce to stub and recommend the author(s) expand it slowly. --J2thawiki 10:25, 2 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete or reduce to stub as J2thawiki's helpful suggestion above, which would keep my heart and my head in harmony. Springnuts 10:50, 2 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I appreciate the various pieces of feedback.

It's not clear to me what is "promotion" in the article, since the bio covers all sorts of notable events and experiences, etc., and states that his video is no longer in release and he works in non-profit work as a chaplain. There is no reference to web sites or anything else that seems to be "promoting."

As Lloyd Bentsen might say, "He's no John Kennedy," but the bio is intended to provide basic factual information about him and cites those who he worked with, wrote and reported about, produced for, etc., as assertions of notability.

I don't know what a "dump" is, but presume it means something like a cut and paste. Clearly, given all the citations to published works, etc., it is not that. In fact, it was written off line (to avoid being dumped by a limited access ISP and keep a phone line open) and submitted and corrected following various views and reviews, as well as updates to sources following previous comments about assertions of notability.

I respect the purpose of Wikipedia, but let's not forge that the company head was just on network news telling the world that it is good that colleges are banning it as a citable research source because of its "grass roots" provenance (my phrase, not his) that is part of the new interactive age. It seems to me that the standards being asserted here, while very helpful, are so strict as to make it impossible for any but the highest of academics to put anything here. If that were truly the source of all of Wiki's content, it seems unlikely that, for all its value, it is the subject of such great discredit right now.

Also, while there is much said about providing verifiable sources, etc., I've read dozens of pages here that provide no such material, links, etc., that is provided in this bio. Nothing says this guy will ever win a Nobel Prize or deserves any great praise or honor, but let's not forget the Albert Einstein was a sixth grade drop-out who was, accordin to his teachers, destined for nothing. And this guy's no Einstein, but we shouldn't forget that the true print encyclopedia's are filled with thousands of people none of us knew, but learned about and came to appreciate, perhaps respect, because someone took the time to write something about them and find what's notable. This guy's been in the Kremlin, at KGB Headquarters, with Billy Graham for his only Soviet crusade, etc. That doesn't make this guy famous like Graham, but certainly notable. And he's a widely published journalist, with no book or other products being hawked in the entry or anywhere else that I know of. This is clearly of intrinsic value, not remotely commercial in orientation. And it's not asking for money, donations, sales, anything...

Cute neologism with the ol' "sycophancy" comment. But stating facts with clarity and citations is not "sycophancy," it's just providing some depth and context. The purpose of Wiki, as I understood it, was to add or modify based on personal knowledge or research of citations, not to blast and attack someone else's work with cute, pithy, Roger Ebert-esque sound bites. Please be as respectful with the comments as we're told to be with our replies to those who suggest deletion, modification, edits, etc. [By the way, as I noted earlier, my ISP just booted me while I wrote this, so I had to log back on in the hope that Wiki would take this when I hit "save".]

Also, the suggestion that it be added to slowly seems contraindicated by the fact that it was previously deleted for being too short. Now you say make it short and add to it later. Since this isn't Al Gore or Charlton Heston, too little made/makes folks like you say "who is this and why is he notable?" So an article answering those questions is completed and submitted to resolve such concerns and it is blasted for having that depth of content, assertions, proofs, citations and links, etc. In that sense, therre seems to be no way to win.

Also, the suggestion that someone else restart it... Just who do you recommend? Someone who doesn't know the subject or sources? Or, as another of you said, someone who just doesn't care for or like this person/profile/article? It's like asking Nancy Pelosi to write a profile of George Bush! Or Eve to write about Al Gore? (Who doesn't know Al from Adam! Though that's not the right analogy, aster all. I'm just not as quick a wit as "Mr. Sycophancy," I guess.)

Finally, I've found many wonderfully written and other woefully written pieces here on Wikipedia, but I don't figure that it is my place to insist that in order for each and every one of them to stay here they must be written in such a way as to conform to my very own personal and, I admit, narrow need to "keep my [very own] heart and my head in harmony." That is the joy of perusing encyclopedias and Wikipedia -- to challenge and push and test and expand and enrich our hearts and minds. I'm not saying that this does this, but it is far from the sort of trash we've all seen all over the web/net, and its example of someone who has done much in his life to report on others in the more traditional media and served others as a chaplain/missionary is certainly worthy of being considered by those who are interested in such things and might be even slightly inspired by it, as I was.

Please, as Rodney King once said, to much grumbling, "Can't we all just get along?" (Or, as quoted by others, "We can all get along.")

I'm new to the Wikipedia process, but hope that I've slid fast up the learning curve -- and ask your forgiveness to the extent that I'm not entirely up to snuff yet.

Just count me a "Sycophancy Pansy" (not interested in hawking anyone but trying to find ways to get people to think about a lot of others. (By the way, that's what this guy did: tell stories about others. I'm telling his, sorry of an effort as mine has been.)

Thanks for your patience.

P.S. Even I had difficulty reading it once it was done, but not for style and content reasons. I found/find the very narrow/thin font on Wiki almost insufferable.

Comment - wow. I think your comment above demonstrates the biggest problem with the article - it's so long and wordy. As you say, even you have difficulty reading it once done. Other long articles such as George W. Bush are readable because they are broke up into sections. As you are new to wikipedia you should have spent some time looking at how other articles are written rather than copying and pasting in so much text.

I'm not aware the article has been previously deleted for being too short. Looking at the logs, [3], it was deleted on 28th March for "csd a7; no assertion of notability".

My overall feeling is that, as it currently stands, the article is not useful. It has lots of sources but they are pasted at the bottom - references should be placed next to the facts that they are sources for. --J2thawiki 13:01, 2 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I have done some limnited wikification and cleanup. If the author of the article cleans it up further, so that it is possible to detrmine which specific citation supports which statement, and if it is trimmed a good deal this might be worth keeping. Weak Keep if and only if significantly improved promptly. DES ^(talk) 22:02, 2 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was Delete. Shimeru 01:51, 8 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Isley nicole[edit]

According to her IMDB credits her roles mainly consist of names along the lines of: Beautiful Babe, Maid, Fantasy Girl, Friend, and repeatedly being Trophy Model for BET. Non-notable. IrishGuy ^talk 01:36, 2 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

weak delete might meet WP:BIO if someone really did some digging, I don't see the evidence though [4]. But a relatively large number of credits would make me think there's a decent chance here... but we need some evidence. Also I've trimmed the article a bit... it looked like a copyvio but I couldn't tell of what. Certainly seems to have been created as spam, more or less. --W.marsh 03:36, 2 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Appears to be an autobiography.--Ng.j 17:37, 2 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep as she appears to have headlined at least one film listed on Amazon.com. I added it to the article, although it really needs cleanup. I am not big on deleting articles that merely require cleanup and more information. Kukini ^{hablame aqui} 00:56, 7 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
comment She was in a direct to video glorified music video. How is that notable? WP:BIO states: With significant roles in notable films, television, stage performances, and other productions That is significant roles in films plural. One direct to video does not notability make. IrishGuy ^talk 04:07, 7 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Weak delete. The case for WP:BIO is tenuous at best. WP:AUTO is not clear criterion for deletion, but it certainly suggests which direction the information in the article may be slanted. Rookwood^{Dept. of Mysteries} 21:52, 7 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. - Mailer Diablo 04:53, 7 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Joe Peacock[edit]

Blogger but the article lacks any substantial secondary sources. Bridgeplayer 15:28, 24 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Even if the website's notable (which I doubt) the author doesn't warrant his own entry. - Iridescenti (talk to me!) 19:36, 24 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - Joe Peacock has been subject of a reliable, intellectually independent secondary source. See here. I see Peacock as being equally notable as Tucker Max, but just less controversial. The Wal-Mart Story which made Peacock notable has received well over 2,000,000 visitors, and Peacock is now published with a major publisher. This article was nominated for deletion in 2006 when he wasn't published, so I waited until now to write this article. I believe he is now notable. Please note that I am not affiliated with Peacock in any way. -GilbertoSilvaFan 20:06, 24 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment "creativeloafing.com" is a reliable source? For what it's worth, www.mentallyincontinent.com is number 458,794 in the alexa rankings and has only 92 links in[5] whilst Tucker Max is in the top 4000 - just because the guy's own website claims he gets 2 million hits doesn't necessarily mean it's true. - Iridescenti (talk to me!) 20:44, 24 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Heh okay dude, don't worry. I wasn't trying to persuade you (or anyone) to vote one way or the other, I was just writing that info so people can quickly/easily see his biggest achievements, and decide whether he's notable or not. I don't have anything to gain from the article being there one way or the other, nor does the author; so if people decide that Wikipedia is better off without the article, then cool. The last thing I want to do is argue about whether Peacock is lying or not, I have better things to do. -GilbertoSilvaFan 01:44, 25 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

For what it's worth, I don't really see myself as much of anything besides a dude who likes to write and has had the great fortune of being read. There's the FarkTV thing, but that's not really worth pointing me out specifically. If I stay on Wiki, cool - it's an honor that GilbertoSilvaFan thought enough of me to actually write this thing. Admittedly, the bulk of the work I actually do isn't directly related to Mentally Incontinent, so I hope you won't take just that one site into condiseration to determine my "worth" or whatever. I will say that things are starting to pick up career-wise for me, and that I'm working hard to get a bit more out there and make a bigger name. But since I had to even say "Working hard to get a bit more out there," that very fact means I'm not out there yet. So, either way. I'm not going to have any hurt feelings, because really, last week I wasn't on Wikipedia... Just because I am this week, it won't make next week much different for me if I'm not on Wikipedia again :) --Joethepeacock 23:33, 25 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Herostratus 01:48, 2 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom, and Iridescenti. - Aagtbdfoua 02:36, 2 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. For what it's worth, the guy can write, and the Wal-Mart story did make me laugh, but I didn't believe for a second he actually pulled it off as advertised. Bottom line is no Google News Archive results for "joe peacock" or "mentally incontinent", and even the website's Alexa rank is past 800,000, so this fails WP:BIO. --Dhartung | Talk 04:10, 2 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per the nominator. Acalamari 16:58, 2 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was speedy keep no argument given, nomination is in defiance of the reference section. It's also a featured article linked from the main page. CanadianCaesar Et tu, Brute? 03:13, 2 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

George Washington (inventor)[edit]

Subject may be non-notable after all. Xiner (talk, a promise) 02:35, 2 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - Uh, this guy is real, right? Not a fake article? Then i don't see why it shouldn't be kept. dposse 02:43, 2 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy keep and close. Not a good AFJ. --Dennisthe2 02:46, 2 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Change vote to Delete, the article was the AFJ. Fallout, anybody? --Dennisthe2 03:08, 2 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
keep is this a joke? Nom makes no meaningful argument,... --W.marsh 03:04, 2 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
speedy keep this was a featured article for crying out loud.--Ted-m 03:07, 2 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was keep, although this should not be seen as setting any kind of precedent, in spite of some comments made in the AfD. --Core desat 04:56, 7 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

List of Virtual Dungeon monsters[edit]

Unencyclopedic. The monster entries are only comprised of plot summaries (WP:NOT#IINFO) and are only sourced from the TV show itself. It contains absolutely no out-of-universe context (WP:WAF). There is very little possibility to get any kind of secondary sourcing or out-of-universe context because VR Troopers is relatively obscure; it's highly unlikely that we will find interviews from the producers about the monsters. I recommend deletion as an article unmaintable and unencyclopedic. Hbdragon88 03:32, 2 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep This is a collection of information directly related to a reasonably notable television show, collating the various monsters that appeared in it. In a sense, it's almost like a list of episodes, which might be the preferred format. I see no reason to delete it. FrozenPurpleCube 03:56, 2 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
strong delete Multiple, reliable sources need to be presented for any article. This one seems to rely on only a single, primary source: the show itself. Without any context or discussion of meaning this is meaningless. 69.210.75.23 05:46, 2 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Actually, I think that not discussing it is more important than trying to present some meaning for it. Presenting information is far more appropriate for an Encyclopedia than analysis of any kind. And the context is quite clear, so I don't even know why you're objecting to it. FrozenPurpleCube 05:55, 2 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  - 69.210.75.23 is referring to WP:NOT#IINFO, whcih stipulates "real-world context and sourced analysis, offering detail on a work's achievements, impact or historical significance..." hbdragon88 06:37, 2 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    - Um, what's missing with the context of "this appeared in episode X of Show Y"? If you insist on more than that, then I'd say you are raising the bar to a fairly higher standard than is common on Wikipedia. Sure, individual articles on these monsters might not be a good idea without more content, but a collected article? Fine with me. At the worst, repurpose the article to cover the episodes more explicitly. In fact, given that this article exists, I'd say there is a good indication that this isn't just some random standalone article, but part of a relatively decent amount of effort. Thus I'm satisfied that if there is further expansion needed, it will come. FrozenPurpleCube 07:00, 2 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
      - I was planning to possibly AFD that in the future too. I asked Ryulong (talk · contribs) about it in December, but he just stated monsters generally got a list anyway. For the episodes, such episode pages already exist for Power Rangers, making the monster ones even less useful. hbdragon88 07:10, 2 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
        Well, I disagree, both in this case, and that one. I think the material is quite appropriate for an encyclopedia. I am also troubled by using this as a test case without mentioning your further plans. I would prefer you had either stated so in the first place, or picked a less obscure show to start with. It would have been much more upfront. Oh, and I don't think you've actually looked at the pages in the Power Rangers episodes category. I consider most of them to be downright abysmal. OTOH, the quality of the monster pages while not perfect, is still a good start. If I had to choose one or the other to keep, I'd pick these pages over the others. FrozenPurpleCube 07:40, 2 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
        I don't think you've actually looked at the pages in the Power Rangers episodes category - well, not that I expect you to check their histories, but I actually created a number of them so I could merge the sheer number of loose and lame stub pages that were floating around. I echo everybody else when I say that lists are better than individual stubs. Article deletion should not purely be about the current state of one or the other - it should be baout the notability of them, really. hbdragon88 01:21, 3 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
      - Well, now that you tell me, looking at the ones I see you created, no insult intended, but I think they're the worst of the lot, so I wouldn't say your creation of them means much. If for some reason there was a problem with the concept of the monsters pages, I would say converting the various monsters pages would actually make for a much better base to start the articles with than what's there now. At the least, the monsters lists are reasonably complete. But then, I'd say they're arguably better than all the episodes articles, so don't feel too bad. I would, however, suggest that you at the least, start looking for a reasonably complete episode list. FrozenPurpleCube 02:58, 4 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Dreadful show, but fairly notable, and merged lists such as this are the normal way that minor characters such as these are generally handled. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 13:40, 2 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Keep A lot of work put in, the list is well presented, and references to episodes exist.--Ng.j 18:21, 2 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Keep Let this page stay. If they delete this, no one will have know what each monster is and their pictures will be orphaned. Rtkat3 (talk) 2:22, 2 April 2007 (UTC)
Strong (possibly Speedy) Keep - I'm sorry, was there an actual reason for deletion in there? Let's examine closer....

"Unencyclopedic" - Vague non-argument. Might as well be a !vote. Fails WP:ILIKEIT.
"...only comprised of plot summaries..." - You mean "information from the primary source", i.e. the work itself? For works of fiction this is not only normal, it's the most effective way to ensure accurate information on elements within that fiction.
"It contains absolutely no out-of-universe context." - Somehow you missed the numerous inline citations referring to "this character did X in episode Y." How does that not make it clear that this article is talking about a separate, fictional universe?
"...(we can't) get any kind of secondary sourcing..." - The only pressing reason for using secondary sources in works of fiction is to establish notability, not to provide "out-of-universe context". This has been done by the "parent article". Any use of subsequent use of secondary sources in this article is a nice bonus, not a necessity.
"...because VR Troopers is relatively obscure..." - Red herring. It's not obscure enough for you to have nominated this article due to notability issues, because the argument clearly won't hold water.
"...article (is) unmaintable...." - How? It's a listing of monsters/villains/foes in a finished series with a finite, known number of episodes. It is almost a poster child for being maintainable, as there is slim to no chance of there being a need for major additions or changes made to the article from its current form.

Finally, I'd like to echo what a lot of other people have said: this is a list of minor characters, merged into one article to provide accurate, detailed information on a subject without needlessly detracting from the flow of the main article on the topic. It's SOP for character-rich works of fiction; nothing about this is different than what is outlined in WP:FICT and what has been already done in dozens of other "minor character" lists for TV shows. -- Y|yukichigai (_ramble argue ^check) 19:44, 2 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Wow, way to take the "unencyclopedic" word totally out of context. If I had just written that, go ahead and tear me up on it, but after that I try to provide other reasons based on policies, so, honestly, why are you making a mountain of a mole hill?

I didn't say that plot summaries were terrible and should be completely eliminated from all articles, but WP:NOT#IINFO says that there needs to be more than that. WP:WAF: (Plot summaries) is fine, provided such fictional passages are short, are given the proper context, and do not constitute the main portion of the article. This is all the entire article is, save for the "this monster appeared in episode X" bits, which are essentially plot summaries anyway. I like how you skip that line and totally trash everything else about the argument.

If secondary sources do not exist, the article should not exist. Sometimes people say "keep and cleanup," waiting for more sources. That isn't going to happen here. VRT was obscure, will stay obscure, what other source will there be besides the show itself? hbdragon88 01:21, 3 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

"If secondary sources do not exist, the article should not exist." There's no policy that says that, certainly not in the manner in which you intend it. The closest you can come is WP:N, and since notability has already been established it doesn't apply. Even ignoring that, it is ludicrous to suggest that for works of fiction we cannot use facts from the primary source unless we also have a secondary source which contains more facts about the topic. For works of fiction, secondary sources are inherantly unreliable for determining facts, or at the very least are less reliable than the primary source, i.e. the work of fiction itself.

As for the "plot summary" objection, it too doesn't apply. For works of fiction, sub-article lists are kind of an exception, or rather cannot be evaluated as a stand-alone document. They exist solely to retain useful, noteworthy information without detracting from the quality of the "primary" article. They are some of many articles which are exceptions to all of the guidelines you've linked to, particularly WP:WAF. To expand on what I said before, there are reasons why some documents are policy and some are merely guidelines: the liklihood of exceptions. -- Y|yukichigai (_ramble argue ^check) 02:34, 3 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Another, quick point: you keep repeating how "obscure" VR Troopers is. It's not. First off, it's notable enough to be a well-sourced Wikipedia article that passes WP:N with flying colors. Secondly, if there were some issue of "obscurity" someone (like, y'know, you) would have nominated it for deletion, successfully deleted it, and this whole argument would be moot. Not the case. Thirdly, no matter how many times you say something, it won't become true. I realize the inherant difficulty in proving a negative, but you haven't even brought up any kind of indication other than continually repeating "it's obscure" over and over and over again. If you really have a problem with the VR Troopers article, add it to the nom; otherwise, drop the damn straw man. -- Y|yukichigai (_ramble argue ^check) 02:46, 3 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - deleting this would set a precedent for deleting all character lists, and the show is fairly notable, even if it isn't so in your area Hornandsoccer ^Talk 02:19, 3 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Extremely strong keep - deleting this will make Wikipedia look bad in the eyes of many who visit here and I seriously DO NOT CARE TO HEAR WHY IT WOULDN'T. It's sad that other, more meaningless things can have articles but this can't. I think there is prejudice here, clearly. If articles like these get deleted while other pointless ones remain, Wikipedia would eventually fail. And when it does, we, the fans, will not listen to any complaints brought on by those pro-deletion fanatics who will no longer have a Wikipedia to work with. I once was a strong fan of Wikipedia, but after seeing articles like these, I am having second thoughts. 71.249.255.91 15:43, 3 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep -I agree with the argument of Hornandsoccer. Kukini ^{hablame aqui} 01:05, 7 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was Delete --Bubba hotep 20:51, 7 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Canadian Federal Government, Financial Year 2003-04[edit]

The last time I checked, Wikipedia was an encyclopedia, not an almanac or a collection of statistics or budget revenues or expenses. This might be able to become an article, but then it probably wouldn't warrant it's own article at all. At present, it violated WP:NOT#INFO. I recommend a straight delete -Royalguard11(Talk·Review Me!) 18:27, 24 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. The government is better able to track and update this information than Wikipedia will ever be. -- Dhartung | Talk 20:06, 24 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. GreenJoe 21:36, 24 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Wikipedia actually is an Almanac. However, there is no need for articles like this for individual years. Unless more information can be added, merging such information into single articles would be more useful. Resolute 22:25, 24 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment incorporating elements of doesn't necessarily mean is. When it says it incorporating elements of an almanac, it probably refers to the fact we do have some statistics (sports related on player pages, population related on cities, other things) but they are usually incorporated into the encyclopedic content. When I said we're "not an almanac", I mean we're not literally an almanac. Like we don't have whole pages or topics that deal with the historical day to day prices or stocks, the temperature in a year, random sports statistics (like season by season standings), or things like that (the just numbers things). -Royalguard11(Talk·Review Me!) 02:44, 28 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  - Actually, we have hundreds, if not thousands, of season-by-season articles for sports teams and leagues, and a very strong prcecident supporting their existence. What you are arguing here is that this article requires expansion, as opposed to deletion. I would suggest that the fiscal information of a national government is useful, and its inclusion would be merited uner WP:5. It does require prose to help add to it, however. Resolute 03:58, 28 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    - You might want to look at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/FA Premier League results December 2006 and Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/FA Premier League 2006-07 goalscorers and even Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/La Liga 2006/2007 results December 2006 then. If you think it's worthy of an article, extend it then. So far it's still nothing, just numbers. Not acceptable. You want to keep it? Then do something constructive and {{sofixit}}. -Royalguard11(Talk·Review Me!) 04:08, 30 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
      - Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/1902 LSU Tigers football team, Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/2006-07 New Jersey Devils season and Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Swindon Town F.C. seasons. As I said, precident for keeping such information, and I would suggest that my examples form a much more acurate parallel to this article than yours do. Regardless, I am not an expert on government spending, and the impacts it has, so I will leave cleanup to someone who knows better. So far, the only thing you have successfully argued is that the information has merit, as you have repeatedly suggested that expansion would "fix" it, but instead choose to take the lazy way out yourself by requesting deletion. This article is a stub, and being a stub is not a valid reason for deletion. Resolute 22:25, 31 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
        A stub is actually worthy of having an "expand and cleanup" tag put on it. This isn't even stub class. -Royalguard11(Talk·Review Me!) 18:52, 1 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per my arguments. A need for cleanup is not equivalent to a need for deletion. Resolute 03:58, 28 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
EXPAND & Keep a government's budget is often a major lever used for ecconimic control. The tables of figures are not as important as what they mean, in relation to the political realities of the day. This sort of information is more interesting when compaired over a time span. cmacd 12:51, 28 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, —bbatsell ¿? ✍ 03:35, 2 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Abstain I abstain from vote. Please maintain respect to great nation of Canada.Wen Hsing 05:37, 2 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was Delete --Bubba hotep 21:13, 7 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Point Juncture, Wa[edit]

Please see WP:MUSIC for notability guidelines. Furthermore, this page reads like a fan site and not an encyclopedia article. Delete. JakeB 22:09, 24 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Erm. They have two records - but one is five tracks, self-published. But the other is on a real (albeit small and local) label, Lucky Madison records. They do have an entry at allmusic.com - bit it's blank (except for listing the records). The article notes that "An upcoming tour in November will take them to Washington, Idaho, Minnesota, Missouri, Arizona, and California." That would be November 2006 I think, so... has this tour occurred? And does this qualify as "a national concert tour in at least one large or medium-sized country"? It's not really national... but then, the USA is a big nation, the area covered would be good chunk of Western Europe, especially when you note that Missouri is included. Reviews? They only list for their only record, in an entity called CD Baby (Nov 2005), whatever that is... they're on the bubble, but sliding off I guess... I would say Delete, but as gently as possible, please. Herostratus 14:16, 28 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, —bbatsell ¿? ✍ 03:42, 2 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom and Herostratus. I wouldn't say they're on the bubble; they're flat on the ground covered with ex-bubble dew, blinking hard. RGTraynor 15:20, 2 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. - Mailer Diablo 04:54, 7 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

7k[edit]

Nonnotable band; unsigned. Claims notability due to appearance at South x Southwest and 1 song on soundtrack of obscure film. I don't think they meet WP:MUSIC. Contested speedy (see article talk page). NawlinWiki 03:44, 2 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Non-notable band, maybe...earmarked for deletion, why? This article defines '7k' in the current rock music vernacular. By simply conducting a Google search it is plain to see that this music group is having an impact (however miniscule) on today's music industry. This article defines them as they are and doesn't smack of advertisement.

(UTC)

Delete - Non-notable band that hasn't done anything particularly important or great--$UIT 04:27, 2 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete As per nom. Dalejenkins 08:21, 2 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete not notable. Acalamari 17:05, 2 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Weak keep: There are some reviews of them- see this and I dunno if the band wrote this or ripped it from CD Baby. There is this, and a Spanish review. Not a band that it is easy to search for, but I reckon those pages, along with their own claims of notability for the reasons NawlinWiki mentioned, make these guys just notable. J Milburn 20:10, 2 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete None of above links appear to be non-trivial as per WP:Music. Rockeyez article in particular could well have been written by the band as site looks to be the musical equivalent of Lulu. A1octopus 23:49, 3 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Nothing came up on an advanced LexisNexis search under a bunch of different searches. Absolutely nothing. Their appearence on the Blood & Guts soundtrack could fulfill criteris #9 of WP:MUSIC, but per #9, if this is the only criteria available, the page should just be redirected. But since Wikipedia doesn't even have a page for the film, it should just be deleted until further reliable sources are discovered. Rockstar915 05:14, 5 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was Delete. Shimeru 02:04, 8 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

List of songs under one minute in length[edit]

This list suffers from arbitrary inclusion criteria. What is substantially different between these songs and songs 61 seconds in length? Or 62 seconds? They're all short. The notion that this is a notable way to classify songs is original research, specifically original synthesis. I suggest we delete. — coel acan — 03:45, 2 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Worthless list. Selection criteria created out of thin air for no particular reason, WP:NOT--Dacium 04:58, 2 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Weak delete I was going to say keep, but after seeing how few other articles link to this article, I changed my mind. --MatthewUND^(talk) 07:35, 2 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Keep Jusi link a few articles and provide references/external links. Dalejenkins 08:20, 2 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

In what way would that solve the problems laid out in the nomination? The list is a classic instance of arbitrary cutoff, and deciding upon such a cutoff is always original research. Why this list and not "list of songs under 53.446 seconds? What on earth makes this anything but an indiscriminate list? Maybe the reason so few articles link into it is that it's arbitrary and nobody thought it was worth linking to. — coel acan — 08:29, 2 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

A minute is a very commonly used unit of time. 53.446 seconds is not. Having songs under one minute means that the song is short enough to be only measured in just seconds. It seems like a perfectly resonable cut-off time for defining a song as being short.Tumble 03:53, 5 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

A block of thirty seconds is also a very commonly used chunk of time. Having songs under thirty seconds would be another way to list songs short enough to only be measured in seconds. We agree that what this list actually is is a "list of short songs". Where we disagree is that one definition of short is better than another. You believe that <60 seconds "seems like a perfectly resonable cut-off time for defining a song as being short". I disagree, and I point out that your gut feeling on this amounts to nothing but a violation of WP:SYN, which is policy. — coel acan — 08:08, 6 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

delete This is a ridiculous list, a lot of it is unverifyable and unreferenced. --Greatestrowerever 11:07, 2 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete It is unverifiable and unreferenced. It is Fancruft. Lizzie Harrison 15:03, 2 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Unmaintainable list, arbitrary inclusion criteria, everything that Wikipedia is WP:NOT. Specifically, this list fails as a list of loosely related topics, and there is no compelling reason to hang on to a list of songs just because they are of length X or less. Arkyan  ^(talk) 15:25, 2 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per everyone else. Also, the list is long already, and it will just get longer. Acalamari 17:20, 2 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Also, the list is long already, and it will just get longer., haha, thanks for that, professor. Lugnuts 19:41, 2 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, as per Coelacan. The list has no use whatsoever, and could include so many millions of songs. Also, Lugnuts, you provide absolutely no reasoning for your keep vote. J Milburn 19:58, 2 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Better than using weasel words like "Worthless", "ridiculous" and "Unmaintainable". Lugnuts 20:01, 2 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, strongly. This nomination sets up a classic Catch 22: if a list has a clear, bright line criterion for inclusion or exclusion, that criterion can then be called "arbitrary", and its selection then becomes "original research" or "original synthesis"? Of course, vaguer criteria are called "subjective" here. If current trends continue, those policies will end up meaningless officialese, without any more meaning beyond WP:IDONTLIKEIT.
This is a list of songs under a minute in length. What original theory does it introduce? How exactly is it "analysis or synthesis of established facts, ideas, opinions, or arguments in a way that builds a particular case favored by the editor"?
To the extent that it needs references, reference to the recordings upon which they appear would seem to be sufficient; that isn't grounds for deletion. Obviously the creator has put a lot of work into creating this page. Please remember the Golden Rule, people. - Smerdis of Tlön 20:28, 2 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep It is no more arbitrary than a Top 10 or Fortune 500. Are some numbers natural and based on reason, and others unnatural and arbitrary? --Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) 22:30, 2 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- No. And all the bands without articles should be deleted off the list too. Lugnuts 17:52, 3 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment yes, would your position be the same on List of songs under one minute and fourteen seconds in length? Carlossuarez46 17:21, 3 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

That's a good question, Richard. Some numbers are natural, such as pi and e and phi. The number in question here, however, corresponds to ^1/1440 of an Earth revolution, and that is arbitrary. You're getting misled by the fact that this appears to be a simple whole number. It's not which number that is important so much as the idea that any particular number shall mean "short song", because this is indeed intended to be a list of short songs. The difference between this and a Top 10 list or Fortune 500 list is that those numbers are chosen independently of Wikipedia, so we aren't endorsing them, rather we are merely reporting them from other sources, as WP:ATT requires. We aren't saying "a top ten list is a good way to see what's worth your time", or anything like that, we just report that another source has published a list and it has ten items. Same with Fortune 500. It's Fortune who decides on the number 500, not Wikipedia. Here, on this list, we're deciding, and that's original research. — coel acan — 08:48, 6 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep but prune it to bands with articles written for them, as to atest notability (of the bands, of course) --FateClub 22:12, 3 April 2007 (UTC).[reply]
Delete, I disagree that it's unmaintainable, but it's clearly arbitrary. There are plenty of lists on Wikipedia that are neither arbitrary nor subjective, so Smerdis of Tlön's argument that removing arbitrary lists will leave us only subjective ones clearly fails. And Fortune 500 is defined outside of Wikipedia, so it's not original synthesis (not that List of Fortune 500 companies exists anyway). I don't see any other keep arguments worth rebutting. This is not a case of WP:IDONTLIKEIT because I do like it, but it clearly fails WP:NOT. Xtifr _tälk 22:15, 3 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I'm still not sure how this is supposed to be "arbitrary." For a list of very short songs, one minute or less seems a reasonable cut-off: it's based on a round figure of a standard measure. At any rate, whether it's arbitrary or not, claiming that this is "original research" or an "original synthesis" ignores and distorts the actual language and meaning of those policies beyond recognition. What we're left with instead is a list on a popular culture subject that's certain to draw hostile attention, that at least one editor found interesting or useful. The only policy I see applying here is that Wikipedia is still not paper. - Smerdis of Tlön 13:44, 4 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Sure, one minute is a nice round number, but it's still arbitrary. Why not one second? Or one hour? Or one year? Phrase your answer in the form of a citation to a reliable source, please. The question is, ultimately, who decided this was a worthy topic for a list? If the only possible answer is "some random Wikipedian", then that makes this a novel synthesis! Wikipedia, like any encyclopedia, is supposed to distill what other, reliable sources have written about. Yes, it's not paper, but it's still supposed to be an encyclopedia. I think this is a great list, and I hope it finds a home on the Internet somewhere. I just don't think Wikipedia is the place for it. Maybe Wikisource would be good. Xtifr _tälk 10:00, 5 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

No, it doesn't. The policy about "original syntheses" you are referring to actually speaks about "analysis or synthesis of established facts, ideas, opinions, or arguments in a way that builds a particular case favored by the editor". This, by contrast, is a list of songs, and if there is some tendentious point to it, I haven't found it and no one else has pointed it out either. These policies lose meaning if they are extended so far beyond the things they were meant to cover. Lists on Wikipedia serve a valuable indexing function, and they indeed can be about arranging facts in ways that some random user found useful or interesting. - Smerdis of Tlön 16:42, 5 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Arbitrary inclusion threshhold- what is special about songs up to 59 seconds in length? Why single these out from others? Should we have a list for songs between 1 min and 1 min 59 seconds inclusive as well? I see no reason to present this information in this matter and clear policy against doing so. WjBscribe 10:08, 5 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Weak keep as per Richard Arthur Norton, FateClub. I am of the opinion that sixty seconds is the most appropriate length of time for this list, but I am not fully convinced that it needs to exist in the first place. -- Ianiceboy 15:53, 5 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per Arkyan. -Panser Born- (talk) 01:24, 7 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per Smerdis of Tlön. If a specific inclusion criterion is used, a list is labelled "arbitrary". If a vague criterion is used, it's "subjective". If a "Top 10" list is presented, it's a violation of WP:NOT#DIRECTORY. To me, this is solely an issue of content organisation. One minute (60 seconds) is a common cut-off point. If anyone thinks 61 seconds works equally well, propose it on the talk page and see if you can gather consensus to change it. If you can't, then that's a sign that that proposed organisation of content is not community-supported. Cheers, Black Falcon 07:25, 7 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. No assertion of notability. - Aagtbdfoua 13:29, 7 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, but split into separate lists, or cut out the less notable songs. If I knew more about music, I'd do this myself. 60 seconds is perfectly reasonable given the way we measure time. Black Falcon brings up particularly good points above. Rookwood^{Dept. of Mysteries} 22:14, 7 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. - Mailer Diablo 04:54, 7 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Nation (novel)[edit]

Next to nothing is known about this future Terry Pratchett book. The sole content of the stub - that it will not be a Discworld book - is pure speculation. Thus I believe it is better to delete the whole thing and start fresh once some reliable information is released. Charon X/talk 03:50, 2 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete WP:CRYSTAL--Dacium 05:01, 2 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
It is NOT pure speculation... Pratchett is on the record as saying it will not be a Discworld novel. Barbara Osgood 18:29, 2 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: Then please give us a source for this. The most recent source regarding "Nation" I found was [6] and it explicitely states "Is it Discworld?" he asks, anticipating the question, and answers: "Not necessarily. At the moment I'm just writing. If it needs to be Discworld it will be Discworld. It could be set in this world 150 years ago while still more or less being a fantasy. The codename for it is Nation." Regardless, I think right now it is just too little content to have an article about. Charon X/talk 19:42, 2 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per Dacium. If "Nation" is not going to be the book's title (and it appears that it's not), there's no reason to retain a stub at this name. Deor 00:59, 3 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as crystal balling. The quotation from the source provided even has Pratchett saying "if it needs to be Discworld, it will be Discworld", so in other words we know precisely nothing about what it is or what it will be. BigHaz - Schreit mich an 09:11, 3 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was speedy delete, april fools vandalism (csd g3?). - Bobet 09:19, 2 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Annie Mail[edit]

I don't even know where to begin. Obviously this is an April Fool's day joke. It was originally tagged for speedy deletion, but later removed because the article does assert notability. In fact, quite a bit of notability. However, Annie Mail certainly does not exist, Cher did not reference her ever, and she is definitely not an online editor at Time Magazine. Probably my favorite part about the whole article was that she discovered hip hop upon meeting "Da Man Swizzle Dizzle." Anyway, I nominate for deletion, probably speedy deletion, and hopefully even inclusion in WP:BJAODN. Just read it. You'll laugh. And then "cry with tears of undisputed joy." Rockstar915 04:54, 2 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy delete - I already tagged it with speedy deletion tag. It seems to be a hoax, and lacks any reference to assert notability - not to mention some dubious claims. Baristarim 05:06, 2 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment It is kinda funny though :) Baristarim 05:08, 2 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Isn't it, though? I read it over again and laughed some more. Rockstar915 05:16, 2 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as obvious hoax, or perhaps hot mess. --Dhartung | Talk 05:53, 2 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was Speedily deleted by Mailerdiablo (WP:CSD#G1). ◄Zahakiel ► 17:31, 2 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Helga Funk[edit]

Sigh. I already nominated Annie Mail for deletion; Helga Funk was created by the same auther, with the same ridiculous nonsense. Not only does Helga Funk not exist, but she certainly did not predict the "inventions of automobiles, the entire field of aeronautics, and man's landing on the moon," nor write any of her groundbreaking science fiction. Per my arguments on Annie Mail's AfD, this article was most likely an April Fool's day joke, and the author is probably getting a kick out of the fact that its even being discussed. But... the article asserts notability, no doubt, but still should be speedied, and probably put in WP:BJAODN. Rockstar915 04:59, 2 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy delete - I already tagged it with speedy deletion tag. It seems to be a hoax, and lacks any reference to assert notability - not to mention some dubious claims. Baristarim 05:06, 2 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. - Mailer Diablo 04:56, 7 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Ross Walker[edit]

Ross Walker, exact phrase, along with "amber" has 10 ghits, the top being a self-promotional site, and the rest seem to be various project pages, no outside coverage by reliable sources. There seems to be no evidence of independent press coverage that mentions Ross Walker in the context of AMBER. He is not currently mentioned in the WP article AMBER. This page was created by User:RossCWalker. The speedy delete tag was removed from the article by a newly created single-purpose account. There is no evidence of notability that satisfies WP:BIO Darkspots 05:19, 2 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletions. -- Pete.Hurd 05:48, 2 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. He is listed on the first external source in the article as being one of 31 authors of this fine software, but that does not make him notable enough. It is also a COI. --Bduke 08:05, 2 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - per nom. This article is a failure of WP:AUTO and WP:COI. Morenooso 12:21, 2 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete and redirect to Rhinoceros. --Core desat 05:00, 7 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Rhinosaurus[edit]

Clear and present hoax. This non-existent dinosaur lived 350 million years before other dinosaurs in the precambrian, eating branches from the tall trees which didn't exist in the precambrian either. Dinosaur-sized bollocks.Grutness...wha? 06:33, 2 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

delete per nom. Googling does produce a lot of hits, which is a sad reflection of poor spelling nowadays. Springnuts 06:51, 2 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to rhinoceros. As Springnuts noted, many people make this spelling mistake, so might as well help them. If you want to delete the hoax before redirecting, I have no objection to that. Sjakkalle (Check!) 07:02, 2 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete or redirect. All the google results appear to be jokes or misspellings. The latter suggests there is a good argument for redirecting it to rhinoceros. Will (aka Wimt) 08:18, 2 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete- agree with Wimt- does not appear to be a real. Thunderwing 08:24, 2 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete and redirect as common spelling mistake, per Sjakkalle. I guess I'm the only one who thinks it's funny enough for WP:BJAODN. cab 08:31, 2 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect per realistic spelling error. MLA 12:38, 2 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete and redirect as suggested above, I know I have made this spelling error in the past and people are likely to do it again. Arkyan  ^(talk) 15:26, 2 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect, no deletion necessary. Misspelling is plausible. Ab e g92contribs 18:42, 2 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect, but make sure it is on someone's watchlist, to prevent recreation. J Milburn 19:55, 2 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Done, but more eyes can't hurt. Ab e g92contribs 23:45, 2 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy delete utter nonsense. Acalamari 22:37, 2 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete- though I kind of like this word. ;) Metamagician3000 07:22, 3 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete and Redirect, since there's no merger, there's no reason to preserve the history, and probably good reason not to do so. (Side note: while it's mildly funny, I definitely don't think it's good enough for the already-bloated BJAODN.) Xtifr _tälk 22:21, 3 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was keep. - Mailer Diablo 04:57, 7 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

List of Homer Simpson's jobs (2nd nomination)[edit]

This falls under Wikipedia:What_Wikipedia_is_not#Wikipedia_is_not_an_indiscriminate_collection_of_information in my opinion. It's a fan list that isn't very notable to people other than Simpsons fans, and its very trivial. Lots of one time things happen in shows (the Simpsons especially), I dont see a need for them all here. What's next: things Lisa complains about? jobs held by Bart? Things Maggie has played with? All happen on a frequent basis (maybe a little less, but it's a comparision, to show there is many repeating themes that could be collected in useless lists). Previous AFD was no consensus: Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of Homer Simpson's jobs. RobJ1981 07:30, 2 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Merge into Homer Simpson. Crotalus horridus (TALK • CONTRIBS) 08:11, 2 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Notable enough. Dalejenkins 08:17, 2 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep- too much information to merge into the main Homer Simpson article. I can see why it may be seen as trivial, but are the jobs of Homer Simpson not a notable theme in most Simspon storylines? Thunderwing 08:23, 2 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

According to whom? Wikipedia? Are there multiple independent sources which make the claim that this is a notable theme in most Simpson's storylines? Original research seems to be a big problem here. --- RockMFR 00:49, 3 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Should be on a fansite, not Wikipedia. Important information can be merge into the main article. Poeloq 08:50, 2 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Homer's jobs have directly been the subject of self-parody on the show, it's a notable aspect of Homer's character. Not a random list. Wl219 09:17, 2 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - significant plot element and significant part of the character. Would unbalance the character's article if included. Otto4711 13:46, 2 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Weak delete. I am pretty sure that this article will be kept again and I'm gonna be in the minority here but I agree with the nominator and Poeloq that this information isn't exactly encyclopedic. Otto4711 makes a good point that Homer's taking of a new job (albeit temporary) often serves as an important plot point in Simpsons' episodes, I am just not convinced that "important plot elements" are material worth keeping in a general knowledgebase - they are more suited to fansites. Arkyan  ^(talk) 15:31, 2 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per Otto4711. - Peregrine Fisher 17:36, 2 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - Part of a larger topic. Homer's jobs are significant episode plot points. Wikipedia is also not paper, so I see no reason to exclude this very encyclopaedic list. Matthew 18:48, 2 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, but someone needs to sort out the "count as of now" at the top of the page. Lugnuts 19:39, 2 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep encyclopedic and must remain forked. TonyTheTiger (talk/cont/bio) 19:49, 2 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per excellent points made by the others. Volunteer Sibelius Salesman 19:53, 2 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep as a list that adds context and elaboration to Wikipedia's coverage of an important fictional character in American (and, frankly world) popular culture. youngamerican (ahoy hoy) 20:30, 2 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per the other keeps. Acalamari 22:37, 2 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per youngamerican. Plinth molecular gathered 23:27, 2 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Complete lack of any sources whose subject is "Homer Simpson's jobs". Fails every notability guideline. I will be very disappointed if this ends in a head count. --- RockMFR 00:46, 3 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep as a non-arbitrary and well-annotated list.-- danntm ^T _C 02:45, 3 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Important and well-annotated list, though it needs more paragraphs, easily obtained by citing the large volume of Simpsons scholarship readily available. Cromulent Kwyjibo 16:22, 4 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Strong keep Per all the above. - Denny 17:46, 4 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Homer Simpson is an important icon of American mythology and some of his one-episode jobs practically have the status of folk fables. Del arte 18:57, 5 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Ideally, I would merge this to the character; but, in this case, length is a prohibitive concern. Sufficiently encyclopedic, considering the character's iconic status, as supported by the sources in his article. Sourcing concerns for the list are reasonable, but presumably easy to cure, given the number of Simpsons reference books published by the show's staff. Xoloz 15:13, 6 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was NO CONSENSUS. The closing remark by the nominator suggests this should be worked out elsewhere, and that deletion was never his actual intention. -Splash - tk 15:50, 8 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Monica Hannan[edit]

I don't feel that a news director of a small television station is inherently notable. I have tried to clean this article up, but I still don't feel that Hannan is notable or worthy of an article. MatthewUND^(talk) 07:51, 2 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Looks fine to me. Dalejenkins 08:18, 2 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - fails WP:BIO. Otto4711 13:49, 2 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete no significant evidence of notability cited. DES ^(talk) 22:49, 2 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - fails WP:BIO, news anchors, unless nationally known, are generally not notable enough. -Hornandsoccer ^Talk 02:23, 3 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - WP has plenty of articles on smaller-market media personalities. Hannan should not be an exception. --AlexWCovington (talk) 04:49, 3 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment - I hate to pick on my friend Alex, but where are all of these articles for local news personalities? There are plenty of articles for journalists who work on a national scale, but am I missing a category for local journalists? I have come across a few local news personality articles in the past and they have often seemed like vanity pieces. --MatthewUND^(talk) 05:02, 3 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  - Peruse Category:American journalists and see how many stack up to the news director of a 4-station television network. -AlexWCovington (talk) 05:18, 3 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS is not a valid argument at AfD. If you think there are other articles that may not meet our policies and guidelines, you can nominate them for discussion separately, but here and now, we're discussing this article. See also WP:INN. Xtifr _tälk 22:37, 3 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete sources are not independent nor reliable. Ohconfucius 10:03, 3 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - Hannan is bismark`s no.1 anchorwoman and is known city wide — Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.104.138.189 (talk • contribs)

Question What do you bean by a small television station — Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.104.138.189 (talk • contribs)

- Comment - Well said, except I would go even further to say that she is known through much of Western ND, as her newscasts reach that area both on radio and on television. Weatherman90 02:42, 7 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
~~Keep~~ she is a writer — Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.104.138.189 (talk • contribs)
~~Keep~~ She is one of north dakotas major broadcasters — Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.104.138.189 (talk • contribs)

Check WP:BIO Again — Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.104.138.189 (talk • contribs)

Comment: In a remarkable display of being bold, 70.104.138.189 had actually edited WP:BIO to support his argument in this AfD. You can see the edit here. This was quickly reverted by User:Radiant!, who, like me, is not a participant in this debate (yet), and therefore has no particular axe to grind. Although Radiant merely called the edit "redundant", I think it also conflicted, mildly, with WP:LOCAL, which is another guideline that might be worth considering in this particular debate. This person may or may not be sufficiently notable, but the television station where she anchors almost certainly is, and so a merge per WP:LOCAL is an option worth considering. (I still have no stated opinion in this debate.) Xtifr _tälk 10:32, 5 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Ok, WP:LOCAL has been marked historical since last I looked at it. But while the specific points it addresses may not have reached consensus, the underlying notion about mergers are widely used throughout Wikipedia, and they are what I had mind. Xtifr _tälk 10:39, 5 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Seems to meet all necessary criteria for a stub. Kukini ^{hablame aqui} 01:18, 7 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - She is a television anchor who covers all of western North Dakota. That is a lot of reach. Weatherman90 02:40, 7 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - I feel that a little clarification is in order. As a member of WikiProject North Dakota, I am very much in favor of having a robust level of North Dakota-related content on Wikipedia. The reason why I nominated this article for deletion was because I wasn't sure that this individual was notable enough to warrant her own individual article. I would be happy to see the content of the article merged into the NBC North Dakota article. If we did that, we could turn Monica Hannan into a redirect to the NBC North Dakota article. We could add a section to the NBC North Dakota article with the info about Hannan and other anchors from the station. I would actually think it would be a great idea to include brief information about anchors on other North Dakota tv station articles as well. I'm certainly not opposed to having that kind of information on Wikipedia. My only reason for nominating the article was because I didn't feel that this one anchor was any more unqiue than other anchors and that she really didn't deserve her own article. I would like to see this material merged with the NBC North Dakota article. I think that would make sense. In hindsight, I perhaps should have done the merging myself and turned Monica Hannan into a redirect myself instead of nominating this article for deletion. --MatthewUND^(talk) 04:39, 7 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was speedy delete. Kungfu Adam ^(talk) 18:06, 2 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Silver Hammer[edit]

Non-notable band. The only external reference is the bands myspace site. delete--Greatestrowerever 08:11, 2 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy delete - no assertion of notability. So tagged. MER-C 11:48, 2 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete - no assertion of notability, and it wouldn't matter if it had. This isn't even a garage "band," because "band" implies more than one person. This is just the uberkewl name attached by this guy to the demo he worked up, which has all of seven minutes running time. RGTraynor 15:09, 2 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was speedy delete. Demo by band whose article was speedy deleted per CSD A7. WjBscribe 18:41, 2 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

March Into Battle[edit]

album by non-notable band Silver Hammer that is also up for deletion. Should also be Deleted--Greatestrowerever 08:14, 2 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy Delete, no assertion of notability. This isn't even a self-produced, unreleased album. It's a self-produced, unreleased seven minute demo. RGTraynor 15:10, 2 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was speedy delete by Mailer diablo (CSD A7). WjBscribe 18:38, 2 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Isaac Domagalski[edit]

Member of non notable band Silver Hammer which is also up for deletion. Delete--Greatestrowerever 08:17, 2 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy delete - being a member of a garage band is not an assertion of notability. So tagged. MER-C 11:49, 2 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy Delete, no assertion of notability. He isn't so much a "member" of this putative garage band, he's its only member. "Isaac Domagalski is the driving force of Silver Hammer. He started Silver Hammer in 2006 and continues to make music under the name Silver Hammer" is the entire article, the sum total of its work being a seven-minute demo (AfDed above). We might as well toss in WP:COI as well, given that these three articles (and putting the names in on other articles) constitutes the sole activity of the creator. RGTraynor 15:14, 2 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was No consensus = default keep --Bubba hotep 21:41, 7 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

GameCentral[edit]

Not noteable Dalejenkins 08:31, 2 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been added to the list of CVG deletions. — Kaustuv Chaudhuri (via) 13:53, 3 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - Nominator has failed to assert a reason to delete. Furthermore, as this is a broadcast product that would indicate notability to me. Dread Lord CyberSkull ✎☠ 07:28, 6 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. - Mailer Diablo 04:58, 7 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Ric Jilla[edit]

Non-notable rap artist, appears to fail WP:MUSIC Neier 08:37, 2 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as nom. Neier 08:37, 2 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, falls well under the bar of WP:MUSIC; single album selling only 10,000 copies, even if sourced (which it is not) this is NN. RGTraynor 15:05, 2 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete not notable. Acalamari 22:35, 2 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete not proven notable. Opening for so many leading acts of the genre as claimed in the article would, I feel, be sufficient grounds for notablity, but I cannot find any sources that prove this to be true. A1octopus 23:09, 4 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. - Mailer Diablo 04:58, 7 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Sagging fetishism[edit]

Probable hoax, entirely unsourced, original research. "Sagging fetishism" gets 0 google hits while "sagging fetish" gets 27, mostly related to breasts. Robotman ¹⁹⁷⁴ 08:41, 2 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, hoax. (Are hoaxes elligible for speedy?) -- Mikeblas 13:02, 2 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete whether it's a hoax or not. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 13:41, 2 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as hoax or something made up in school one day, perhaps as a non notable fetish. Hoaxes are not eligible for speedy deletion as they are too hard to spot- something that is not a hoax could easily be mistaken for one, and two pairs of eyes is just not enough to confirm that. J Milburn 19:50, 2 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per everyone else. Acalamari 22:36, 2 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy Delete - I'm about as kinky as they come, and I've never heard of this. WP:HOAXALICIOUS! -- Y|yukichigai (_ramble argue ^check) 02:55, 3 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete this is pretty hoaxy, and I don't know any girl who actually likes sagging. That's strictly a chest-thumping male fashion. JuJube 06:30, 3 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - No outside sources, little to no notability--NPswimdude500 ^{(Talk|Contribs)} 03:21, 5 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: The first two paragraphs are simply copied from sagging (fashion), the third is absurd. A google for "sagging fetishism" only pointed to Wikipedia. Graf Bobby 22:16, 6 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was closed; deleted per nom Raul654 22:23, 6 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Scientific data withholding[edit]

Note to closing admin: please check for WP:CANVAS like [7]

Raul654 22:23, 6 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Neologism; POV fork of Scientific data archiving. RonCram spent an awful long time [8] and repeats trying to label inadequate data arching as pseudo science. Eventually he gave up, only to put the same text in a different article, this one. Its just a POV fork/vehicle for RonCram William M. Connolley 08:51, 2 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

delete as per nom :-) William M. Connolley 08:51, 2 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

William, your most recent edit was interesting.[9] You did not make any statement on the Talk page to justify the edit. Your only comment was in the Edit Summary: "attempt at NPOVing." You seem to think the best way to make the article NPOV is to delete information that is accurate and well-sourced. This may be a surprise to you, William, but censorship is not the same as NPOVing. There is no question McIntyre found a subdirectory marked "BACKTO_1400-CENSORED." The fact Mann did not report in the article that he got results contrary to his conclusions is another example of data withholding. If Mann had a good excuse and I left it out, you could certainly add the excuse and call it "NPOVing." But censorship in order to protect a business partner is not Wikipedia policy.RonCram 02:06, 4 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Ron, you seem to think you know a lot about William's personal motives and "business partners". I respectfully suggest that you be aware of the first 2 sentences of WP:NPA, especially the second. --Nethgirb 02:33, 4 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Nethgirb, I did comment on the content of his edit. I don't like censorship. I do know enough about William's relationship with Mann to know that this constitutes WP:COI. See the RealClimate website listing the contributors. There you find Mann, Mann's coauthor Bradley and Connelly.[10] RonCram 02:40, 4 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

So you have discovered that scientists in related fields collaborate with each other on academic projects. A bit different than saying they are "business partners". I respectfully suggest that you be aware of the first 2 sentences of WP:NPA, especially the part that says "Comment on content, not on the contributor". --Nethgirb 04:34, 4 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I thought Mr. Connolley could raise such an issue if it seemed necessary to him, and that you could refrain from taking sides in this personal discussion between these two persons? Besides, I would be surprised that WP:NPA forbids someone to raise or discuss WP:COI - otherwise the latter would have little relevance no? Perhaps that's what Mr. Connolley understood... --Childhood's End 13:22, 4 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I have listed William on the COI Noticeboard [11] Suppressing negative information about "individuals, causes, organizations, companies or products" you are affiliated with is the definition of WP:COI. I have asked William to explain.RonCram 13:36, 4 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

keep I originally thought data archiving and data withholding should be discussed in the same article. But they are different concepts. Data withholding is a much greater crime against science than a lack of data archiving. William Connelly's view of the article is affected by the fact he is closely associated with one of the examples of data withholding, Michael Mann. They are both contributors or partners in the website, RealClimate. In accordance with WP:COI, I have asked William to consider if he is too close to the subject to view it objectively.RonCram 14:41, 2 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

keep Replication and transparency are important (and seldom-understood) aspects of science. This article seems to provide fairly good supporting evidence. There are some famous examples of scientific data withholding, especially in the medical field, where data for drug studies was invented and ultimately lead to the disgrace of the authors. I think it would be good to have links to and from such examples. But overall, I think the concept of the article is reasonable for an encyclopaedia. 220.233.81.49

speedy keep Consider that this was nominated for deletion within the first 24 hours. Keep the article (which already has established itself as legitimate and more informative in the 20 hours before this RfD was performed than many other articles that pass RfD. The article is not an issue is the nominator prefers text to be his way, even on the Talk Page for the article he links to above [12]. In fact, This article s/b WP:SK ("The nomination was unquestionably...disruption and nobody else recommends deleting it... Examples of this include obviously frivolous nominations...nominations which are made solely to provide a forum for disruption (e.g., a userpage of a contestant in a heated edit war by their opponent(s) solely for harassment)"). The only catch is the nominator's cadre will come and support deletion simply to thwart the speedy. Nonetheless, this RfD is just another retaliation in a wide-reaching edit-war. -- Tony 15:04, 2 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

speedy keep I also agree with the comment "RfD is just another retaliation in a wide-reaching edit-war." It is pretty clear when the nominator here doesn't agree with something...--Zeeboid 15:09, 2 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

speedy delete As it stands right now - the article is a POV fork (or a pre-mature split) - i suggest that RonCram begin working on the article and differentiating it substantially from Scientific data archiving - it is way to close to a diff of Ron's work on that page currently. The concept should've been developed on the other article - and then when it was substantial, split off into a new article. --Kim D. Petersen 16:37, 2 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep It is not a POV fork, because it does not express a "different point of view" from its companion article. The articles could be merged. Moreover, Dr. Connoley is abusing the afd nomination to advance his own point of view, i.e., that there is nothing wrong with scientist withholding data from the scrutiny of their peers.
- As a scientist, he's entitled to his POV, but "withholding data is contrary to the scientific method, textbooks describe it as unscientific or pseudoscience." If this sentence in the article is incorrect, it should be fixed; deleting the whole article serves no encyclopedic purpose. --Uncle Ed 17:54, 2 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Uncle Ed is right. If there are errors, they should be fixed, but this seems a notable topic for an encyclopedia. Phiwum 18:51, 2 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy delete This is ultimately a POV fork of Global warming controversy. Ron wanted to give greater weight to a particular claim of data withholding in climate science levelled against Mann et al, so he created Scientific data archiving (for evidence, see discussion). Editors criticized that article as containing OR and being a front for discussion of a particular controversy regarding data withholding rather than data archiving (see much discussion). Now Ron has created Scientific data withholding, but the fundamental problems of being a POV fork and containing OR remain. This may or may not be a notable topic, but I can say that the vast majority of the current article (excluding the copied-and-pasted policy statements) is either POV, OR, or irrelevant, so there's no particular reason to save this. For example, the entire introduction, except for the last sentence, is OR. The bit about pseudoscience has a reference but is not actually supported by it; notice Ron didn't provide a quote from the source. --Nethgirb 19:24, 2 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Nethgirb, you are entitled to your opinion on the question of keeping the article or not, but I have to respond to your misstatements of fact. Nothing about either article is OR. In its current form, there is nothing controversial about Scientific data archiving article at all. I can provide a citation for almost any statement you may question in Scientific data withholding. Regarding the statement about pseudoscience, you only need to read the Wikipedia article to find support. Or you can read the quotes provided on the Talk page of Scientific data archiving where it was discussed at length. Almost every textbook that deals with the scientific method in any detail will describe data withholding is unscientific or pseudoscience.RonCram 21:38, 2 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

SDA is only non-controversial *in its present form* because all the dodgy OR and POV pushing by you has been taken out; and subsequently stuffed by you into this article William M. Connolley 21:43, 2 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Yes Ron, I know that we have discussed it at length. Yet you still fail to provide an external quote for your claim that "textbooks describe [withholding data] as unscientific or pseudoscience". --Nethgirb 21:52, 2 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Let's make this explicit Ron: I challenge you to exhibit right here a quote from a reliable external source which states that "textbooks describe [withholding data] as unscientific or pseudoscience". --Nethgirb 22:03, 2 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Nethgirb, here is the quote I gave you earlier from a textbook chapter titled "Evidence-based practice and pseudoscience:"

Publically Verifiable Knowledge

The second principle involves the public nature of scientific knowledge. Knowledge gathered empirically does not exist solely in the mind of the scientist. In fact, it does not exist at all until the person disseminates it to the scientific community for critique, testing, and replicating of results. Knowledge or findings limited to one person or group and not verified can never have the status of scientific knowledge (Dawes, 2001). The person or group must present such findings to the scientific community in a way that others can achieve the same results. This process ensures that a particular finding is not the result of bias or error. [13] When you read that carefully, you will see that unverified info is not science. More importantly, you do not delete an article if you disagree over the meaning of one quote. RonCram 22:07, 2 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I see a lot in that quote about verifiability/reproducibility but nothing about data withholding. This is the fundamental point you continually have missed: a study can be verified and reproduced without looking at its data, because the data itself can be reproduced. "More importantly, you do not delete an article if you disagree over the meaning of one quote." -- Agreed. Other parts that are problematic: the rest of the introduction, excluding the last sentence, is unsourced and thus can be considered OR; the climate science discussion is significantly slanted towards the McIntyre/McKitrick POV; and the Jan Hendrik Schön example is not really about data withholding, because the important part is that he faked his research. (You might say that there was no data withholding involved, since there was no data in the first place. :-) ) This accounts for the bulk of the content in the article, excluding the copied-and-pasted policy statements. --Nethgirb 22:23, 2 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Nethgirb, I must also respond to the charge the article is a POV fork of Global warming controversy. I do not understand how you can make that statement. First, the discussion of Michael Mann is a one paragraph subsection of the article. It is an illustration, not the main topic. Second, Global warming controversy is an article about the controversy. As such, its raison d'etre is to discuss events surrounding the controversy. How can you claim that an article about the AGW controversy should not contain information about Mann's withholding of data? That doesn't even make sense. RonCram 21:48, 2 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

"First, the discussion of Michael Mann is a one paragraph subsection of the article. It is an illustration, not the main topic." It's also the longest paragraph. Coincidence? Here are your own words: "In an effort to explain some of the issues involved in this [climate science] controversy, I have written an article Scientific data archiving ... I have tried to make the article of general interest by not limiting the discussion strictly to climate science." [14] It seems pretty clear to me that you wrote the article in order to criticise climate science, and tacked on everything else in order to make it appear less like a POV fork. "How can you claim that an article about the AGW controversy should not contain information about Mann's withholding of data? That doesn't even make sense." I never said that. In fact, I agree: GW controversy or Hockey stick controversy are better places for an appropriately weighted discussion of the Mann issues, rather than creating your own POV fork. --Nethgirb 22:40, 2 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

You have quoted me correctly. I started the data archiving article to explain the issues of data archiving and data withholding in climate science but also wanted to put the issues into a larger context. I thought it would be helpful if people could read the policies on archiving and data withholding, learn about some of the studies of the problem and read some illustrations of the problem. Mann's data withholding happens to be the one I know the most about. Mann's case was especially notable since Congress had to get involved before he turned over his source code. I fail to see how this is a POV fork. Are any of the facts in the article in dispute? The only statement being disputed is calling data withholding "unscientific" or "pseudoscience." Yet, Kenosis, who edits the Pseudoscience page, commented that science allows "no wizards behind the curtain." He quoted a textbook by Gauch. Data has to be shared to be considered science.RonCram 01:20, 3 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

speedy delete -- I agree that this is a content fork in the same way as the data archiving article is a content fork. I suggest that the over-arching concept is "Scientific data sharing". Within such an article, sections on archiving and witholding would be appropriate. I also think it's fairly apparently POV and, furthermore, blatantly USA-centric; hence I added a globalise tag. — Dave (Talk | contribs) 02:44, 3 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Dave, I added a paragraph on Dr. Singh, a cardiologist from India and removed the globalize tag. If you think it is still US Centric even though it mentions the UK- based journal Nature and now an illustration from India, let me know what you think it is missing and I will research it.RonCram 04:10, 3 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete POV fork. The name is much more controversial than the subject it discusses. Jerry 02:46, 3 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Clearly a POV fork. Plus, would an encyclopedia have an entry for a term that returns exactly zero pages on a google search? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by SeaAndSand (talk • contribs).

Try googling "data withholding" and see how many hits you get on science topics and papers.[15]RonCram 04:01, 3 April 2007 (UTC) Or you might try googling "data withholding" and "science" where you get 862 hits. [16] Or "data withholding" and "genetics" to get 639 hits. [17] Or "data withholding" and "climate" to get 260 hits. [18]RonCram 04:17, 3 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Strong Delete First of all, a POV fork, and an particularly unfortunate one, imitating another article in order to include views of specific topics which the consensus had removed from the original page. This material--fundamentally a POV not on this but on Global Warming-- had repeatedly be inserted into the original article by one particular editor against the continuing consensus of everyone else. When the article was protected, the ed. resorted to this means of putting his particularly wanted material into an article on another topic. To add to plausibility, he inserted two additional cases, but in the ones selected the question was not in fact scientific data withholding, but the fraudulent absence of any data whatsoever. This is concocted by the desire to insert POV analysis on climate warming into irrelevant articles. The immediate nomination was appropriate, considering the apparent intent in creating the article. DGG 03:12, 3 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

DGG, apparently you have not read the Talk page for Scientific data archiving. If you had, you would know that no consensus existed that the information about Global Warming was POV. I decided to move the more controversial stuff to a new article, not because it was POV or controversial, but because of this comment by Kenosis. He wrote: If I may reiterate the point I made in response to RonCram's statement on my talk page: Data withholding is one thing; failure to archive all data points is another. The former is an indicator, one of may possible indicators, that may contribute to a judgment of a particular enterprise as being pseudoscience. The latter is not necessarily such an indicator if the operational definitions and summary statistics are intact in such a way that the relevant experiment or study can be replicated. ... Kenosis 09:57, 25 March 2007 (UTC) Kenosis convinced me that these two different concepts- "data archiving" and "data withholding" should be discussed in separate articles. I had no idea that William would try to use that to delete the article. This is not a POV fork and anyone who reads the Talk page will know that.RonCram 05:11, 3 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I am a counterexample to your claim that anyone who reads the Talk page will know that this is not a POV fork.

To be fair, there were a number of other editors who supported Ron's view on Talk:Scientific data archiving that that article held a neutral POV (unsurprisingly, the same ones who usually edit GW articles in ways that support a skeptical perspective). Those editors were in my opinion also wrong. Regardless, the lack of a consensus does not diminish the fact that this article is a POV fork. Rather than work towards a consensus (admittedly a difficult task) or fall back to 3rd-party mediation, Ron simply started a new article in which to insert his POV. Ron may not have been doing this intentionally—I believe Ron to be a good-faith editor—but that was the effect. --Nethgirb 05:40, 3 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Nethgirb, I appreciate you trying to be fair. Did you read the comment by Kenosis that convinced me to move the controversial portion to the data withholding article? I copied and pasted it onto this page as well. I thought I was supposed to listen to the advice of other editors. He seemed to have a good point. It seems strange to me to now claim I was avoiding some kind of consensus on the archiving page. RonCram 14:32, 3 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, I read it. I agree with Kenosis, who said that the data withholding-related text you wrote did not belong in Scientific data archiving. But that does not mean it belongs in its own new article; I would say it does not belong anywhere in its current form, and may belong in Global warming controversy in a reduced and neutralized form. This is consistent with my original comment above, which I quote again: "Editors criticized that article [ Scientific data archiving ] as containing OR and being a front for discussion of a particular controversy regarding data withholding rather than data archiving (see much discussion). Now Ron has created Scientific data withholding, but the fundamental problems of being a POV fork and containing OR remain." I appreciate your willingness to consider the ideas of another editor on this particular point, Ron, but the effect of being a POV fork remains. --Nethgirb 22:24, 3 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Change Name "What about "Scientific Data Auditability" That results can be reproduced by other independent scientists is one of the most basic principles of the Scientific Method, . That scientist A might prevent scientist B from reproducing A's results is unacceptable. If the conclusions of A are based on secret data, then A's conclusions must be suspect.
Delete. Sorry but neologism is the over-riding argument. --BozMo talk 05:50, 3 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. I do not understand the comment. What word is new? If you google "data withholding" you get plenty of pages dealing with science. If you google "data withholding" and "science," you get plenty of pages. If you google "data withholding" and "genetics," you get plenty of pages. "Data withholding" is the common term used for researchers who refuse to provide their data. RonCram 17:50, 3 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep The article claims that withholding data is contrary to standard scientific practice in general (I'd be surprised if anyone had grounds for claiming this was controversial) and is specifically contrary to the policies of influential scientific journals and institutions. It backs up the claim that this aspect of scientific integrity is not adhered to by all researchers with a number of important example cases. That some of these cases make uncomfortable reading for some of the editors here does not make the article POV. The motivation of the original author is irrelevant: the article has merit in its own right. --Ralph Becket
comment An article might have merity on this, yes, and we already have one. This article has no merit , the first ¼ repeats the other page, the middle talks about one special case, and the end talks about 2 scandals involving scientific misbehavior irrelevant to the topic. . DGG 07:44, 3 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I disagree: I think the article does have merit. It does not repeat material in the archiving article as far as I can see. I agree that better examples than Schon and Singh should be found, but the Mann example must surely pass muster. -- Ralph Becket —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 203.214.101.34 (talk) 08:55, 3 April 2007 (UTC).[reply]
Delete: quite clearly a POV fork, to the point where a large portion of the undisputed text is reproduced. --Philosophus ^T 08:51, 3 April 2007 (UTC) (not WMC)[reply]
Delete POV fork also violates WP:NOR. Anything necessary should be in the data archiving article. This topic most certainly should not be used to create a fork for a relatively tangential topic (global warming). csloat 09:05, 3 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom & Nethgirb. Guettarda 12:09, 3 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - excessively one-sided POV thrust and content. --Skyemoor 12:49, 3 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment SO what about the GW article and its mention of Data Withholding?[19] Are you guys going to delete this too? This is so frustrating, how some of these wikipedians are shoving items under the carpet that they don't want. If you guys think its violating POV Forking, please provide sections of text from the POV Forking article to back up your opinion. To delete an article just by referencing a link to a large policy is Very Un-Wiki. Also, if you want to start quoting policies, then I have one to quote as well. Wikipedia:Ignore all rules. So by that rule, I believe if you guys are pushing the POV Fork (which I don't agree with anyway), then I think removing the article on Scientific data withholding would do more harm to Wikipedia then good. And to pull out the conspiricy stops, it would also appear many of these people markin the article as delete, carry over their same opinions when it comes to most GW articles: The balancing view must be crushed.--Zeeboid 13:27, 3 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy keep Afd request coming from a user who is in an obvious COI, which is enough to turn it down. Subject is also notable, well documented, and is certainly different from the data archiving issue. --Childhood's End 14:05, 3 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment The above seems to border on a personal attack, not to mention a serious failure to assume AGF. Furthermore, it is not at all obvious to me what William's COI would be in this case (that he happens to be a reknowned climate expert is somehow a COI now?), and even if there were a COI, nothing in WP:COI says that an AfDs coming from someone with a COI should be rejected. There are very good reasons to delete this article. Try to deal with those and not cast aspersions on the nominator. JoshuaZ 14:09, 3 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  - Comment Reknowned climate expert? Outisde his internet activities, is WMC a known "climate expert"? Also, I'm just trying to help with sound rules of evidence here (that the WP community is free to adopt or not, of course). If in any other inquiry, a testimony coming from a witness who is cought in a COI can hardly be accepted, why would it be different on Wikipedia? Please think about it before dismissing anything that may involve the nominator. --Childhood's End 14:53, 3 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    - Reply to comment Counselor, objective evidence of WMC's status as a "climate expert" is that his work is published in first-rank journals such as Science, Geophysical Research Letters, Journal of Physical Oceanography, and Journal of Geophysical Research. Raymond Arritt 03:20, 4 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment Let me help you with the WP:COI. Please look through his pages (William) and note his self proclaimed environmental activism. An Environmental Activist editing things that have to do with the Environment is about as bad as someone who works for Exxon editing pages that have to do with Exxon. WIlliam has too much vested in the success or failure of a POV. I agree with User:Childhoodsend in this respect. William's COI in his nomination for deletion of this article should be enough to turn it down. We wouldn't be here if it wasn't for an Activist's proclimation. Also, in what respects (becides Wikipedia) is this person "renowned"? Oh yea... RealClimate.org Blog, which is linked to off of his wiki article, lists articles from him that are hardcore bias. This website also has a vested intrest in Wiki articles like this failing. WP:COI.--Zeeboid 14:30, 3 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  - - Actully, suggesting conflict of interest here is akin to teling a geologist he can't edit articles on geology. Connolley is an expert in his field and we are lucky to have him invest his time here at Wikipedia.--MONGO 01:33, 4 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

MONGO, would be okay if the geologist worked for EXXON and deleted any negative information about the company or its executives? That is what we call a WP:COI and that is exactly what William is doing in this case.RonCram 02:19, 4 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I haven't decided yet whether this article needs to be kept or not, I was merely addressing COI issues and other accusations that I don't believe are true.--MONGO 02:38, 4 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

MONGO, your comment made it sound like we are lucky to have Connelly regardless of whether a COI exists or not. I agree that Wikipedia is lucky to have Connelly, however he needs to be able to pull back from editing when he is too closely involved. He is not doing that here. Perhaps you did not know Connelly and Mann work together on RealClimate? Being a part of the same organization and working on the same project is the very definition of WP:COI.

- - (edit conflict) comment WP:AGF applies as a default, but when a person has established a history of edit-wars and retaliation then there is no room for assuming good faith. When the history (for years in the case of whom you speak) exists then anyone is justified for not assuming good faith. This is from WP:AGF: "This guideline does not require that editors continue to assume good faith in the presence of evidence to the contrary. It gives 3 non-exclusive examples and continues to say, "Assuming good faith also does not mean that no action by editors should be criticized, but instead that criticism should not be attributed to malice unless there is specific evidence of malice. Editors should not accuse the other side in a conflict of not assuming good faith in the absence of reasonable supporting evidence." Pointing out that this Afd was initiated by someone involved in a COI (based on the fact the requestor is in an edit-war on the related articles...not more textbook of an example of a COI than that) is criticizing the action of requesting the AfD, is NOT implying any malice whatsoever, and if anyone erroneously concludes there is an implication of malice it would not be difficult to provide some irrefutable and "reasonable supporting evidence" of a continuous pattern as already described. -- Tony 14:49, 3 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment Most of the above comments criticise editors rather than the content. I think it is better to stay focused on the content, for several reasons: (1) We are here to resolve an issue with the content, not the editors. (2) Any allegations of being involved in edit wars on the related articles can be equally well levelled against all of those involved on both sides. That is, to an outsider not looking at content, all that's clear is that there are two sides who are in conflict on many of the global warming articles. Thus, neutral 3rd parties need to evalute the content in order to reccommend a reasonable course of action. --Nethgirb 22:43, 3 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per Guettarda, Nethgirb and csloat. JoshuaZ 14:09, 3 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Purposeful witholding or suppression of scientfic data is already discussed, and could be expanded upon, in Scientific misconduct. Scientific data archiving currently however could also be expanded, particularly with a discussion of the need for increasingly large archives and the difficulties in data retrieval. Hal peridol 14:48, 3 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. I don't understand 'delete' votes. A delete vote means that we should have no article on the topic, or that a 'red link' is far better than the current article version. A redirect means that there's nothing in the current article worth keeping, but it's a legitimate topic that is (or could be) better covered in another article (the redirection targe).
2nd comment. What policy permits (let alone requires) an article to be deleted because a "consensus of editors" chooses to suppress factually true, well-referenced information which is germane to a topic?
3rd, concluding comment. This afd is too complex and the matter it addresses should be taken up in an article RFC. The chief issue is whether the data archiving / data hiding issue is of sufficient importance to merit an article (or section of one); or should be omitted from Wikipedia entirely. --Uncle Ed 16:00, 3 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per Ed Poor. Different topics and not close to be considered a POV fork. If nothing else, merge. ~ UBeR 17:57, 3 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
DELETE this forking fork. Jim62sch 23:37, 3 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment What was the data that was withheld by Mann?...in what way did it "conflict" with the rest of the information we have on global warming which have been made by hundreds of reknown scientists that the earth is warming? The reason I ask these things is because that seems to be the main examination in this article...the situation regarding Mann...almost half the refs are in regards to him and that situation. Data witholding sometimes does happen in the scientific community when the data may be believed to be grossly inaccurate, or it comes from a contaminated source (this could be the same as not referencing information from biased sources) or if the data cannot be reexamined due to certain limitations.--MONGO 03:03, 4 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

MONGO, Mann withheld data almost from start to finish. The final item was his source code, an item the NSF says has to be archived and provided to other researchers. Congress had to request it before he turned it over. Mann also placed some data in a subdirectory marked "censored" that showed his his statistical method was flawed and his conclusions unwarranted. This is simply not done by a scientist. However, the controversy around Mann does not disprove AGW. RonCram 03:13, 4 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, I understand...and I also see that the two folks most behind the opposing view are McIntyre, a former mining executive and McKitrick who is a GW skeptic...regardless, I see that much of the info about Mann is already provided in detail at Hockey stick controversy, and the rest of the info here isn't really that notable...certianly nothing to rival the Piltdown hoax so I believe this article should be Deleted.--MONGO 03:37, 4 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

MONGO, Hockey stick controversy discusses the criticism of McIntyre and McKitrick and the subsequent reports by Wegman and NAS. However, it does not deal with Mann's data withholding at all. If you had read the article, you would have known that.RonCram 03:44, 4 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I did read the article...what do you think I have been doing? I would not be opposed to taking some of the sources and info from this article and adding it there, as there is a lack of refs there...thaty would actually be a good idea. But I disagree that this isn't covered in Hockey stick controversy...just that it might be in less detail than it can. Building a better framwework in that article aout these events would help clarify the controversy there and that is my suggestion.--MONGO 03:54, 4 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

MONGO, Hockey stick controversy (HSC) does not discuss the fact McIntyre asked for data, methods and source code and Mann said "No." HSC does not talk about Mann's subdirectory titled "censored." HSC does not talk about the fact the NSF, contrary to their policies, backed Mann's refusal to provide data. HSC does not talk about the article in the Wall Street Journal talking about the fact Mann would not turn over his data and methods. HSC does not talk about the fact Congressmen read the WSJ article and decided to investigate. Congress had to request Mann turn over all his data and source code before he would turn it over. I keep seeing people repeat this refrain that "it is already covered" in HSC. It just is not true. And even if it was true, there is no context for people to understand the crime against science that data withholding is. This is not a question of good science or bad science. When data is withheld, it cannot be called science at all. RonCram 04:06, 4 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I have tried to make it clear that I think that this info can be put in that article as that would make it easier to understand wht the controversy is about. I think it can be summarized and added there...the rest of the infomation here is not notable. looking at the graphs done by numerous other paleoclimate scientists, Mann's work is supported, so unless there is a conspiracy by all these scientists to misrepresent the data, which there doesn't appear to be, I can't see having the same info here that should be in Hockey stick controversy.--MONGO 04:28, 4 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Neologism and POV fork. The substantive issues of the controversy between McIntyre and Mann (which, as seen in his comment above, is the author's main justification for the article) already are discussed at Hockey stick controversy, so the present article serves no purpose. Raymond Arritt 03:32, 4 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy Delete. POV fork. FeloniousMonk 04:02, 4 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete POV fork. Well-sourced content may be merged into Scientific misconduct, Scientific data archiving per Hal peridol. To his list, I would add politicization of science for the Joe Barton, Energy & Commerce Committee, letter to Mann. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Wsiegmund (talk • contribs) 04:19, 4 April 2007 (UTC).[reply]
Keep Again, another baffling nomination of a well written, highly sourced article. Cloveoil 12:25, 4 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Perhaps a Mediation here is required. The usual suspects are voting in the usual ways for this article's removal via FORK. In fact, I tend to think Mediation for all global warming related topics may be needed.--Zeeboid 04:22, 4 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Merge into Scientific misconduct, Scientific data archiving, and/or politicization of science, per Wsiegmund. 75.35.74.5 14:31, 4 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment A Conflict of interest noticeboard thread relates to this nomination. Durova^Charge! 16:50, 4 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete or merge into scientific data archiving. This is an obvious POV fork with content duplicated from scientific data archiving and other content that should be in that article. The article delves into great detail on two incidents rather than give a large list of incidents and brief descriptions of the issue in each, and both presentations are POV as the title implies that the subjects are known to be guilty of "data withholding". The title is also a neologism. --EMS | Talk 01:49, 5 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Not a neologism. It is significantly larger than scientific data archiving. Maybe a little bit POV, but this is not a reason for deletion.Biophys 02:28, 5 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. This article is POV from the very start, and the actual selection of cases of misconduct doesn't seem neutral. Why are these cases included and no others? I'd be OK with something built up from well-balanced secondary sources, but this isn't it. The selection of material is so arbitrary and incomplete that merging doesn't seem worthwhile. EdJohnston 03:07, 5 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Merge any useful content back to scientific data archiving, and delete. Article as-is appears POV, though a list of cases of scientific fraud article or the like with some of the leftovers could be useful. --Christopher Thomas 03:26, 5 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - 'Merge and Delete' is not an option in an AfD, because of GFDL. The edit history of whoever first added the material has to be kept. If a merge is done, the title of this article would become a redirect, which should achieve what you want. EdJohnston 15:43, 5 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

- Comment - A list of cases already exists at scientific misconduct. --EMS | Talk 03:55, 5 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. POV fork. --Akhilleus (talk) 06:07, 5 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. The underlying issue here is the practical implementation of the scientific requirements of reproducibilty and openness to public scrutiny. Beside global warming, there are important scientific results that cannot be readily reproduced/verified, e.g. because they are very expensive and/or require huge infrastructure (think of Gravity Probe B), but also for other, subtler and more controversial reasons. It may be very hard to reach a consensus, but IMO an edit war is preferable to deletion. I may add, for transparence's sake, that I have been directly involved in a controversy concerning data withholding and that my POV here is directly affected by the stance I took. Stammer 16:24, 5 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment The underlying issue may be worthy of an article, but I think the data archiving challenges you reference should be at Scientific data archiving, and the scientific misconduct part of it should be at scientific misconduct. This article is overrun with POV. --Nethgirb 19:59, 5 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete The author of this article has coined a phrase. Google returns exactly one results for the phrase search "scientific data withholding". "Scientific data archiving" returns 3,420 results! That means this article fails WP:N as applied to neologisms, and I am convinced that this is a content fork. Jehochman (^Talk/_Contrib) 18:23, 5 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

And guess what that one hit is? [20] To be fair, though, the neologism problems with "scientific data withholding" may be somewhat mitigated by the fact that the phrase "data withholding" is used frequently in the context of science. [21]. But IMHO the content still belongs in other articles like scientific misconduct as EMS pointed out above (and it's still a POV fork). --Nethgirb 20:06, 5 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as POV fork/neologism per all of the above, but most especially the rather horrifying results of the Google search - if Wikipedia is the only source, delete with fire and brimstone, salt and have done. KillerChihuahua^?!? 22:39, 5 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as POV fork/neologism and original research and synthesis. To the extent there is reliably sourced material there, it should be included in the relevant articles about the scientists so long as it is done in an NPOV fashion. -- THF 02:24, 6 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as pov fork - it's all been said above. Vsmith 02:57, 6 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, or redirect to Scientific misconduct. Count Iblis 15:09, 6 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Background info - keep at bottom:

Wikipedia articles should not be split into multiple articles solely so each can advocate a different stance on the subject. From Wikipedia:Content forking

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was KEEP. -Splash - tk 15:53, 8 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Shmuel Auerbach[edit]

Contested prod of a rabbi. No sources, no googles, possible lack of notability. >Radiant< 09:04, 2 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

If some references can be found then keep, otherwise Delete--Greatestrowerever 09:05, 2 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep- I can see him being notable if he is a leader of a politcal party? Thunderwing 09:23, 2 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, fails WP:ATT, WP:BIO for politicians. It would be great if he actually was, but in point of fact his party (Degel HaTorah) has any seats at all in the Knesset only through an electoral alliance with the more prominent United Torah Judaism. Auerbach does not himself sit in the Knesset in either of the two seats assigned to DHT, nor is he listed in DHT's article as any manner of party leader or functionary. Being a junior "leader" of the thirteenth most important party in Israel doesn't strike me as significant. RGTraynor 13:44, 2 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- RG: You are wrong on all counts: (1) Rabbi Shmuel Auerbach is not a politician, he is a noted Haredi rabbi and posek ("decisor of Jewish law") (2) United Torah Judaism (UTJ) is not "one" party, it is an alliance between two separate parties: Agudat Israel (representing Israeli Hasidim) and Degel HaTorah (representing the "Lithuanian" Mitnagdim) (3) For the last election in Israel they agreed to be united under the "banner" of UTJ but split the six Knesset seats they attained between themselves, see United Torah Judaism#2006 unity. (4) The supreme policy-making bodies for both Degel HaTorah and for Agudat Israel are their individual "Council of Torah Sages" (Moetzes Gedolei HaTorah) and it is there (in Israel) that Rabbi Auerbach sits and "wields" power together with the other rabbis on the two councils. (5) None of the rabbis on the "Council/s of Torah Sages" ever sit in the Knesset, a job which is left to political functionaries (themselves also rabbis, but lacking in the religious/spiritual power of the "Council of Torah Sages" members.) (6) Rabbi Auerbach's notability is derived from the fact that he is regarded as one of the pre-eminent Torah sages of present-day Haredi Judaism, and has nothing to with how he is perceived in the world of Israeli politics. (7) Finally, my question to you is, when did you become an expert in Haredi rabbis? IZAK 05:05, 6 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - abstaining from voting as I know nothing about Israeli politics, but if Degel HaTorah's correct in saying he's leader of a party with 3 elected representatives in the Knesset, he's probably notable enough to warrant a keep. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Iridescenti (talk • contribs) 17:40, 2 April 2007 (UTC).[reply]

Comment: If he actually is, a claim for which the article provides no source. A Google search of Shmuel Auerbach + Degel HaTorah turns up all of 28 hits, most of them Wikipedia and various mirrors [22] and almost all of the rest being blogs. The lead hit discussing Auerbach's role with the party is from Haaretz [23], an article from this January that states "Most prominent among these rabbis was the head of the Maalot Hatorah Yeshiva, Rabbi Shmuel Auerbach, who is expected to be an important Degel Hatorah leader in another 10 years or so." (emphasis mine). None of the other sourced hits do anything more than identify Auerbach as belonging to the party. RGTraynor 18:08, 2 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - his page on Hebrew Wikipedia presumably says more & has better sources, if anyone can translate it. - Iridescenti (talk to me!) 18:25, 2 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Not one whit more, from the looks of it, and apparently not so much. RGTraynor 19:22, 2 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Weak Keep as a politician assuming sourced back up his being head of the party.--but we'd need some evidence of that, since the article on Degel HaTorah mentions two other leaders, but not him. DGG 03:16, 3 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- DGG: Let's get this straight, Rabbi Auerbach is not a politician. He is a spiritual leader of Haredi Judaism. IZAK 05:05, 6 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Judaism-related deletions. -- ⇒ bsnowball 10:16, 3 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment As the article is written now, it certainly doesn't prove N. This Rabbi might be worthy of a better article but his work might also not be publicized on the internet, or maybe he is NN at this time? Nonetheless, the timing for an Afd might not be productive at this time since it is a Jewish holiday for the next week and some editors with more knowledge to comment or add info might not be logging in. --Shuki 22:18, 3 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Keep. The article is badly written and needs to be expanded, for it implies that Rabbi Auerbach's only claims to notability are the fact that he is the firstborn of Rabbi Shlomo Zalman Auerbach and that he is a prominent figure in the Degel HaTorah political party. Nonetheless, in addition to these, Rabbi Auerbach is a well-respected Rosh Yeshiva and posek. A simple WP: Google test would reveal his fame [24] , [25] , and [26], as well as the Hebrew wiki. This is probably an unfair afd at this time because anyone who knows anything about Rabbi Auerbach is busy celebrating the eight-day festival of Passover, and probably won't see this afd for another week. רח"ק | Talk | Contribs 05:31, 5 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Also, there are more hits for "Shmuel Auerbach" than "Shmuel Aurbach", so perhaps that should be changed on the page. רח"ק | Talk | Contribs 07:31, 5 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

merge to dad - NYC JD (interrogatories) 06:14, 5 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Huh? No need to rely on "dad" (is that a way to refer to a Gadol?) 'cause he is notable on his own merits. Cut the apron strings! IZAK 06:19, 6 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep because he is one of the world's most important, notable, non-Hasidic rabbis alive, and much written about in the Haredi press, especially in Israel. The fact that there are relatively few "hits" on Google is meaningless in this case. There are enough articles that mention his name that would be brought up as this stub would be expanded with time. In future, it would be wise for any editors not familiar with Judaism, especially with the personalities of modern Haredi Judaism to desist from nominating topics they know nothing about for deletion. A better and more prudent course of action would be for them to post a request at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Judaism and ask editors over there first who may know more about the subject. IZAK 04:40, 6 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- I think that it's ridiculous to request that editors resist nominating Afds because they might not have knowledge of the subject. The nominated article screamed NN, OR, and what else and the Afd was perfectly valid. It is a good thing that people unfamiliar with the subject are comptrolling the vast amount of categories on WP, because otherwise, we'd have a lot of poorly written articles. --Shuki 18:56, 7 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  - Shuki: It is definitely not "ridiculous" that "editors resist nominating Afds because they might not have knowledge of the subject" -- because just think of the consequences, anyone with no knowledge of a subject can flip to areas they know nothing about and decide that because an article is not "looking pretty" so it "deserves" to get zapped. That is sheer childishness and an invitation to turning Wikipedia into a free arcade game where anyone would be free to nominate the seeds of legitimate and serious work for oblivion and obliteration due to some delusionary "screamed NN, OR" appearance or whatnot. Any seasoned editor knows that tens of thousands of the best articles and biographies start/ed out as raw, unsourced, stubs and even remain/ed so for quite some time until more seasoned editors with more time and access to better sources add/ed to and improve/d the articles. It is not a "mitzvah" to be editorially trigger happy, especially if one is ignorant about the subject matter at hand. This should be obvious, but obviously some people still don't get it. IZAK 08:04, 8 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Note: Here are ten citations from the web, among many more, for Rabbi Shmuel Auerbach that prove his importance to Israel's Haredi world (now also added as "External links" to the article): (1) Haaretz article: Draft deferrals for yeshiva students surpass 50,000 mark in 2006. ("Rabbi Shmuel Auerbach, who is expected to be an important Degel Hatorah leader in another 10 years or so") (2) Rabbi Shmuel Auerbach noted in Yated Ne'eman: Opposition To Initiatives For Religious-Secular Dialogue and to the Idea Of a Covenant Stressing Common Values (3) Rabbi Shmuel Auerbach and the "Torah Codes" on aish.com (4) Rabbi Shmuel Auerbach's actions described in Intermountain Jewish News (5) Rabbi Shmuel Auerbach leads major Orthodox charitable organization (6) Rabbi Shmuel Auerbach bans the books of Rabbi Natan Slifkin, the "zoo rabbi" reported in Haaretz (7) Rabbi Shmuel Auerbach sought for a blessing (Torah.org) (8) gaymiddleeast.com: Rabbi Shmuel Auerbach opposes Israeli gays (9) Rabbi Shmuel Auerbach sought out for advice (shemayisrael.co.il) (10) Rabbi Shmuel Auerbach endorses ban on smoking. Thank you, IZAK 06:19, 6 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per notability established by abundant sources found by IZAK. --MPerel ^{( talk | contrib)} 06:29, 6 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per IZAK --Shirahadasha 06:44, 6 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
definite keep dean of Shar Shomayim (the top yeshiva for Kabboloh) but living person so be careful Wolf2191 17:37, 6 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per aformentioned reasons.--Yeshivish 04:21, 8 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per Izak's sources. In general I am strongly inclined to keep something that had been on the hebrew wikipedia (which has an extreme deletionist policy) for a long time (September 11, 2005). Jon513 10:17, 8 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was DELETE. -Splash - tk 17:43, 8 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

List of mute fictional characters[edit]

Trivia. Not a meaningful grouping. Unsourced. Irrelevant for e.g. many animalistic characters, or cartoons that don't involve speech. >Radiant< 09:28, 2 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Fixed nomination page. No stance. -- saberwyn 10:19, 2 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. Dr bab 11:26, 2 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete- agree with nomination. Thunderwing 11:28, 2 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. Nothing more than a trivial collection of loosely related topics, so fails WP:NOT. Arkyan  ^(talk) 15:35, 2 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep useful resource for someone researching people with disabilities. --FateClub 22:15, 3 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep This information is already considered encyclopedic as evidenced by the accepted "Category: Fictional mute characters" [27]. This page has more entries than that category and is more organized and readable. Dell Orean 03:24, 4 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. Seems like an indiscriminate list,WP:NOT#IINFO, WP:ATT refer. Angus McLellan (Talk) 15:45, 8 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. - Mailer Diablo 04:59, 7 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

InsideOS[edit]

Non-notable. Low Alexa rank Computerjoe 's talk 09:37, 2 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, non-notable software. I'm not seeing any hits for it, so there's no 3rd-party coverage. -- Mikeblas 13:01, 2 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, a new product, needs a little time. Just because it does'nt have 1000 page-rank does'nt mean it is crap. 80.192.11.171 13:56, 2 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Non notable, non encyclopedic, the software is at the release 0.1e, so delete until (and if) it becomes notable. Cate |_Talk 14:24, 2 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, has no real google hits and when I tried it it didn't have much functionality, so I presume this is more advertisement for a forthcoming product than anything else. Not notable, not encyclopedic Poeloq 17:05, 2 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, going with WP:SOFTWARE. To the anon above, this is not an expression that we think it's crap, we just don't find it meeting the notability guidelines. That, and we're not a place to promote software. --Dennisthe2 19:37, 2 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was keep. - Mailer Diablo 04:59, 7 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

iRows[edit]

NN Computerjoe 's talk 09:39, 2 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. It seems that the article is true (but unfortunately I cannot find a relevant (and not blog) link). And from Whatlinkshere and google hits, it seems also relevant and notable (the firsts software on a new topic are historically important and so also encyclopedic). Still need a good WP:V source. Cate |_Talk 14:42, 2 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep iRows was absorbed by Google, and is notable therefor alone, in my opinion. Also, it was one of the first proper Web2.0 applications. Poeloq 17:07, 2 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Notable as one of the first online spreadsheets, and due to controversial way the project was consumed by Google. John Vandenberg 00:37, 3 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per John. --Pkchan 07:33, 3 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was DELETE. At this time, this FP6 project does not meet Wikipedia's requirements. Serious conflict of interest issues also appear to be present. -Splash - tk 15:56, 8 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Edutain@grid[edit]

Non-notable software, vanispamcruftisement. Contested prod. MER-C 09:58, 2 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

This page provides basic information on the FP6 project Edutain@grid. Any reference to software or companies, that could be considered to cause conflict of interest or notability issues, has been removed. The article has been shortened to provide a brief overview of the project. The entry was intended to emulate that of other, similar FP6 Projects - therefore it is difficult to understand why this page is marked for deletion, and how it differs from the others. Suggestions as to how to alter this entry to meet the requirements of Wikipedia editors would be much appreciated in order that this project can retain an entry similar to other FP6 projects.Edugrideditor 13:26, 2 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Basically, what we need for now is non-trivial news coverage (not a press release) or another reliable secondary source. Ab e g92contribs 18:46, 2 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

This is the link to the project page on the European Comission website CORDIS FP6: edutain@grid Is this a sufficient secondary source? Should it be added to the entry? Edugrideditor 07:57, 3 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

DELETE. No, the European Commission itself is not enough of a source. It appears that no one has written any newspaper or magazine articles on this entity, therefore it is unverifiable and probably unnotable. Herostratus 06:20, 8 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was Delete --Bubba hotep 22:06, 7 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Ritmiquaa Percussion[edit]

Vanispamcruftisement. Contested prod. MER-C 10:01, 2 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Yes the article is, indeed, all of those. Unless creators (or someone) can add links to multiple non-trivial sources per WP:Music before the end of this AfD debate and re-write the page so that it looks less like a commercial, then the article has no place here. A1octopus 22:58, 5 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Ritmiquaa Percussion article should not be deleted for it an official band, and a band that has contributed to Istanbul Highschool Youth 2003-2007 with their concerts and shows. They are well-known among highschools. It is fairly normal that there are encyclopedic informations about them and about their foundation. Ritmiquaa 15:46, 6 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. - Mailer Diablo 05:00, 7 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Paymon[edit]

Transwikiied dictdef, Wikipedia is not a dictionary. Contested prod. MER-C 10:02, 2 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Has already been transwikied so nothing left to do but delete. Arkyan  ^(talk) 15:41, 2 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I agree, Delete Smmurphy^(Talk) 03:04, 4 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was Delete --Bubba hotep 22:13, 7 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

AssaultMecha[edit]

Non-notable and insufficiently referenced crystal balling. Contested prod. MER-C 10:04, 2 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. not a crystal ball. From article the project was declared officially cancelled, there is a chance the project may be revived, so until (and if) the project will release the game, let rest it int he delete trash. Cate |_Talk 15:36, 2 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been added to the list of CVG deletions. — Kaustuv Chaudhuri (via) 13:54, 3 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

Bubba hotep 22:13, 7 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was keep. - Mailer Diablo 05:01, 7 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Muezza[edit]

Unreferenced, unverified, original research. Out of the very few sentences in the article, only one has some references, that too has little to do with the subject. Previous AFD resulted in keep, but most of the keep voters assumed notability without any proof or references being provided. The article has remained unreferenced since June 2006. So, I nominate it for AFD, and vote for Delete as unreferenced original research. Ragib 10:05, 2 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Strong Keep Whether considered religiously "official" or not, it's a notable bit of folklore. A Google news search shows this story has appeared in newspapers many times, including an Oakland Tribune story in 1908, all the way up to an Idaho Statesman story of March 2007. It's also appeared in many books. Notable folklore, keep. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 13:56, 2 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

We need verifiability for the information being cited. The article isn't. --Ragib 17:22, 2 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Where exactly is the verifiability issue? I'm seeing dozens of newspaper and book sources. Pick whichever one you like best, add it to the article. Problem solved. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 18:04, 2 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The article now has 5 or so {{fact}} tags applied to about 6 sentences. That does ring a bell... --Ragib 18:34, 2 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep If we're going to remove every bit of unofficial, substantiated religious folklore, why don't we start at the Virgin Mary? 90% of the things the Western world thinks it knows about her comes from folklore. Why isn't this going to cleanup instead? --Charlene 17:10, 2 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment:WP:V triumphs "must keep folklore". --Ragib 17:22, 2 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: WP:V does not mean that things must be true; it means that things must be attributed. I see attribution. --Charlene 04:22, 6 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Strong Keep It's folklore, but essentially, it's notable folklore. The important issue here, is, verifiability, not truth. --SunStar Net ^talk 18:15, 2 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Exactly ... the article as of now is totally unverifiable. --Ragib 18:34, 2 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep See [28], which shows me at least half a dozen recountings of this story. It may be fictional, but then, so might William Tell. If you're concerned about the contents, clean it up yourself, or tag it and let somebody else fix it. FrozenPurpleCube 00:44, 3 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
For shame that anyone would wish to see this deleted! Keep. Vranak
No vote as can't be bothered to log in, but see the book Khan Al-Khalili, 1944, by Naguib Mafooz, for a detailed telling of just about everything in the article when Hamza recounts tales his mother told him. It's only available in old Arabic editions I think, but everybody is shouting for an early Arabic reference to the story. This is it. 212.11.177.224 13:38, 4 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was Delete --Bubba hotep 22:14, 7 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

AspectBench Compiler[edit]

Non-notable software. Contested prod. MER-C 10:18, 2 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Article is fragmentary and uninformative. It lacks reliable sources and any evidence of notability. EdJohnston 22:36, 3 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was Keep. Rlevse 13:31, 8 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Smartslab[edit]

I declined this speedy ages ago in favor of a prod that got contested. Another editor left a comment on the talk page to the effect of being unable to verify any of the sources cited here. Without being able to verify the depth of coverage, it is impossible to establish notability. Without notability established, the article should be deleted. Chaser - T 11:44, 2 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. The article itself claims a few sources in magazines, and while I cannot verify them at this moment, a search on Google turns up mentions on some architectural publications, such as [29]. Depth of coverage may be a little thin but the topic seems to be of importance largely to architectural fields and I can see how it'd easily slip under the radar of general public interest and techie news outlets, but there seems to be enough out there to establish WP:N for this. Arkyan  ^(talk) 15:51, 2 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Weak keep At the moment, I don't have the ressources to verify the cites. If they do check out, please consider this a vote for keeping the article. Based on a dozen or so search engine queries, it looks like the subject is sufficiently notable. The article is denifitely in need of cleanup though (particularly the ad aspect bothers me). Seed 2.0 14:44, 4 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was DELETE. I do not think that WP:CORP applies to the article as I read it now, since it does not speak about a corporation (or similar). I find it surprising that the previous AfD led to survival of GoogleTV since the references in the article are all (but one) from Youtube, hardly a source of encyclopaedic standing. The external links are a fraction better, I suppose. In any case, the article in question here is substantially original research, most obviously the 'Proof of a hoax' section, and I'm surprised no-one mentioned that. The 'Alleged access...' section seems pointless, as it merely recounts in painful detail the content of a YouTube video. That just leaves the 'List of...' section, which nowhere claims notability. Perhaps a halfway cruft-free article that "gets over itself" on GoogleTV might pass muster, but here is not where to start, and this article claims to be about a 'thing' that fails every test we might apply to it. -Splash - tk 16:07, 8 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Infinite Solutions[edit]

Video production company that fails WP:CORP. Much of the article content is about their hoaxes, which also apparently fail WP:N. Mikeblas 12:59, 2 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. GoogleTV, which was merged into this article, survived an AfD and all the reasons for keeping from then remain valid. --Stlemur 13:05, 2 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment. The reason for keeping it was that consensus wasn't reached in the other AfD. The article has no verifiable sources for the topic of the article itself; everything is a YouTube video. Unless some bona-fide references are available, this article is just PR and spam for Mark (of MarksInfiniteSolutions.com), and needs to go. - Mikeblas 13:11, 2 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  - Comment The youtube videos are the content of the hoaxes. --Stlemur 13:52, 2 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    - Comment. Right; which leaves us with no sources about the subject of the article itself, and adds to the flavor of promotion and SPAM. -- Mikeblas 20:41, 2 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
      - Comment***** It is perfectly notable. Go look at how many views the videos have received. And youtube is just where he hosts the videos, he has his own webstie. Jkshermanator 02:24, 3 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Apparently an Internet pranker and vandal. I'm not sure that WP:CORP applies, though if it did it would fall within the reliable rule that any company whose name includes solutions is not notable unless its business is dissolving things. More an Internet meme thing, and no notability shown. - Smerdis of Tlön 16:15, 2 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment. Oh! I had read something that made me think they were billing themselves as a film production company. Then, I think the "not for things made up one day" rule will apply. -- Mikeblas 20:41, 2 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. There are several sources listed in the external links section, which seems to suggest that "GoogleTV" at least is a notable hoax. I'm not certain that the article is in the right form, but I think we should allow the article some time to develop.--Kubigula (talk) 03:58, 8 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment. Most of what's listed in the links section of the article is self-published, and therefore fails attribution. -- Mikeblas 04:28, 8 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was REDIRECT to Ladonia (micronation). Nominator: note that merge+delete is generally considered impermissible. -Splash - tk 16:11, 8 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Örtug[edit]

This unsourced stub is about the "currency" of one of those joke micronations so insignificant that it consists of the location of two sculptures and boasts of having no actual residents; odds are long that not even any fake currency has ever been minted. At the best this deserves no more than a Merge and Delete. Non-notable, fails WP:ATT, WP:BULLSHIT. Yay for "random article." (Mind you, I can get behind a micronation with an official "Ministry of Duct Tape and High Voltage") RGTraynor 13:11, 2 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Ladonia (micronation), the micronation in question. I'm not really sure about what the inclusion criteria are for micronations, but it seems sourced enough and we have the article - may as well redirect there. Arkyan  ^(talk) 15:54, 2 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: Oh, I certainly don't propose scrapping the Ladonia article; this certainly looks at first glance to be the sort of dispute that would attract a good bit of media attention. RGTraynor 16:28, 2 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: "Joke micronation"? I don't find this substantial reason to delete an article. I wrote the stub on the currency; the value is from a financial page, though I no longer recall which. I agree that the currency may redirect to a section in the Ladonia (micronation) page, but deleting the reference altogether is a shame. Your personal opinion on the matter is irrelevant, RGTraynor. The micronation exists, the currency is official, end of story. Stimpy 01:15, 6 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. --Core desat 05:02, 7 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Elmlea Infant School[edit]

Article about an infant school (ie to about 7-8 years old) with no obvious claims to specialness. Contested prod. Mr Stephen 13:06, 2 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Schools-related deletions. -- Noroton 15:32, 2 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete serves no purpose. The school doesn't need an extension of their website. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Vaniac (talk • contribs) 16:44, 2 April 2007 (UTC).[reply]
Delete per WP:N or Merge what little is here to Westbury-on-Trym. --Butseriouslyfolks 17:26, 2 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete nothin worth merging, and a redirect would probably overstate it's importance/notablilty. No third party sources. Ohconfucius 10:06, 3 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. The article only says that such school does exist, but there is no attempt to provide additional information. It is like an entry on a directory. Rjgodoy 12:09, 6 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was Speedy Keep. utcursch | talk 05:11, 6 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

A Million Penguins[edit]

Non-notable piece of shit; only has 491 articles, and not very well-known outside a small community. We don't have a page for ED, which has way more articles, why bother with this shit? Knighhtz 21:17, 1 April 2007 (UTC) — knighhtz (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]

This AfD nomination was incomplete. It is listed now. DumbBOT 13:21, 2 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy Keep. Whoa. Pretty bad-faith nomination here, fairly interesting collaborative project by a well-known book publisher, has sources, etcetera. The rather strong language in this nomination is really uncalled for too, the account was made for the purpose of this AfD, and user has subsequently vandalized E.T. Adventure. Seems to be a troll for Encyclopedia Dramatica or something. Arkyan  ^(talk) 15:59, 2 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per User:Arkyan. I created this article. I believe this to be a bad faith nom. And Google hits are a poor way to judge notability. Dismas|^(talk) 18:49, 2 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy keep and close as a clear case of bad faith nom. --Dennisthe2 19:17, 2 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy Keep per everyone else. Acalamari 22:32, 2 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete perhaps bad-faith nomination but subject matter is non-notable. Otherwise include sources (CNN, etc.) that have paid attention to this school project. --FateClub 22:18, 3 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. This project has had a lot of press attention and therefore meets WP:WEB. Angela . 01:27, 6 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was DELETE, nn-corp. -Splash - tk 16:12, 8 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Associated Psychological Health Services[edit]

Seems like advertising to me. Postcard Cathy 15:18, 31 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

This AfD nomination was incomplete. It is listed now. DumbBOT 13:21, 2 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as obvious advertisement. Organization isn't Notable, so there is no encyclopedic content. DGG 03:20, 3 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was NO RESULT. The nominator failed to nominate; the debate went nowhere. I see no point relisting this as there is no nomination to proceed on the basis of. I would suggest a fresh, properly-argued case be made (for example, by User:DGG). -Splash - tk 16:15, 8 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Birch Run Expo Center[edit]

Keep: needs to be cleaned up and expanded though DCUnitedFan2011 12:22, 31 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Article just needs more material, to denote significance. TenPoundHammer 01:25, 1 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

This AfD nomination was incomplete. It is listed now. DumbBOT 13:21, 2 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete the subject has so significance. Arena for a defunct basketball team, now a (claimed) venue for trade shows. DGG 03:22, 3 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was nomination withdrawn. howcheng {chat} 06:31, 5 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Dime (slang)[edit]

Unrefenced, ~~delete~~--Greatestrowerever 21:01, 31 March 2007 (UTC) (references now added)--Greatestrowerever 21:34, 31 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - I created the page at 20:59 and you tagged it at 21:01. How about 24 hours to finish putting it together before you try and take it down. Look at my work. I usually do good stuff. I just got my first WP:FA and WP:FL this month. Give me a fair chance to pull the page together. As noted in the edit summary, I am creating this to augment Dime in support of Dime (United States coin) which is coming up for WP:TFA on April 10th. TonyTheTiger (talk/cont/bio) 21:13, 31 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- I suggest you augment the article with a {{wiktionary}} tag. Dmcdevit·t 06:54, 4 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

This AfD nomination was incomplete. It is listed now. DumbBOT 13:21, 2 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hey, that's a whole 2 minutes! Transwiki to wiktionary; it looks a dicdef me, even if a nice and detailed one. Tizio 13:30, 2 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I have checked the new version of the article, and it is still a dictionary definition to me. I have no problem in letting it stay here for some time (at least, it's a good dictdef), just I can't see how that can change it from being better suited for Wiktionary. Tizio 12:04, 3 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Transwiki to Wiktionary as a (well-written) dicdef, though it was incorrect of the nom to tag it for deletion while it was clearly under construction. Krimpet (talk/review) 18:07, 2 April 2007 (UTC) Keep to give the article more time to be developed and referenced first, then we can see whether it's a candidate for transwiki or not. Krimpet (talk/review) 19:24, 2 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- I agree the the wiki definition should be augmented with slang uses. However, WP has a place for slang terms. Come back after I augment the page a bit. Maybe it should be listified as a List of slang uses of the term Dime, but I think WP has a place for this article. Again, reconsider after I have put this together. As an aside, when I do new page patrol, I go back 10000 edits which is over 4 days because I don't think you should hassle people until after they have had a chance to cleanup their work. You are already pigeon holing this into Wiktionary. I think this will make a decent list when I get through. TonyTheTiger (talk/cont/bio) 18:46, 2 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep This article is on the way to being more than a dicdef, and that it is careless to tag it this soon after creations. Nothing that is not absolutely obvious nonsense (etc) should be tagged that soon. DGG 03:42, 3 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Transwiki and delete. Any article that begins with "Dime is a term with multiple slang meanings." is about solely word meanings, and not the encyclopedic concept behind the word's referent. The sections, "Usage"s are just more definition material. See WP:WINAD. Just because there are many definiteions does not make it encyclopedic. If you are planning a list of definitions, note that those are not encyclopedic either, as Wikipedia is WP:NOT#DICT "dictionary definitions" or "Lists of such definitions. " Dmcdevit·t 06:54, 4 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. This article is far beyond anything that's appropriate for a straight transwiki to Wiktionary, and its extensive encyclopedic portions would be deleted in the process.--Father Goose 07:17, 4 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete and redirect to Fairfax County Public Schools. There is nothing to merge as the target has this information already. --Core desat 05:03, 7 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Fairfax County elementary schools[edit]

Delete: I don't believe we need a separate article for elementary schools. Uponglory 12:17, 31 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Merge and Split: I think that the elementary schools should have their own articles and I belive that, this should be merged with Fairfax County Public Schools DCUnitedFan2011 12:19, 31 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Split Basically the same text is already on the Fairfax County schools page. This page was created as a result of an AFD discussion on many of the elementary schools. They all had their own pages, they were listed for AFD as non-notable, and this was the supposedly better result. The middle schools of Fairfax also had AFD discussions regarding their notability; however the outcomes were keep and no consensus. On the elementary schools, I am all for them having their own articles. KeepOnTruckin ^{Complain to me | my work here} 03:57, 1 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

This AfD nomination was incomplete. It is listed now. DumbBOT 13:22, 2 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Schools-related deletions. -- Noroton 14:44, 2 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment The Fairfax Public Schools article is one of the better school district articles we have, and coverage of that county's many schools is extremely good. I get the strong impression from all the work done there that this list is the beginning of a more detailed article on elementary schools in the district and that individual school articles may be calved off from this glacier as information about them is added (the opposite also applies: if you have a bad elementary school article, this would be the place to merge it with, since Fairfax Public Schools has too many schools for one article to fit descriptions of all of them).

Given the effort demonstrated in so many other Fairfax Public Schools articles, if an editor tells us this is the beginning of an article where more and more information on elementary schools will be supplied, let's step aside and let it happen. It's hard to believe that some reader is going to search out this particular subject and then be disappointed by what appears on the screen, so there's no harm in us waiting. But I won't vote "Keep" unless someone can give us a good idea of what is planned for this article.Noroton 15:18, 2 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Strong Delete per WP:N and WP:A. This is just a list of schools that would be better located on the district's website. As such, I am opposed to a merge here. --Butseriouslyfolks 17:20, 2 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete this. There is no reason at all to upmerge this any further, do not do that. I support creating articles for the school provided they establish notability though. This is at best a non-notable list.--Wizardman 02:25, 3 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Typically, articles on individual elementary schools are not usually considered notable, despite some continuing objections. Since they aren't notable by themselves, this is the practical solution. I note the discussion, where some want this article deleted because there should be no articles on them at all, and some that it should be deleted because each of the schools should have an article. This is the reasonable compromise, and it would be unfortunate if it were to be deleted for opposing incompatible reasons. The article should, and probably will, be expanded beyond a mere list. DGG 03:48, 3 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Indivisual schools may not warrant an individiual articles put Category:Lists of schools in the United States should have their own articles. --FateClub 22:28, 3 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Fairfax County Public Schools - this is a direct copy of the list in that article so there is nothing new to merge. TerriersFan 01:17, 4 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Fairfax County Public Schools per TerriersFan's comment. It's redundant data, and any expansion that I could imagine would belong on the FCPS article anyway. --Dariusk 03:48, 4 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I agree with Wizardman. Hmwith 10:05, 4 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Fairfax County Public Schools. Content is already there and this article adds nothing that's not in the district article. Alansohn 13:54, 5 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was REDIRECT to Easterhouse, where this is already mentioned. -Splash - tk 16:18, 8 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Glasgow Fort[edit]

This is a shopping mall/complex . There are hundreds of thousands of them. Suggest only notable complexes such as the West Edmonton Mall or Mall of America be included, as they are notable for size and history, not just having stores. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Mr. Shean (talk • contribs) 2007/04/02 12:34:14

This AfD nomination was incomplete. It is listed now. DumbBOT 13:22, 2 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete- agree with nomination- this centre is not notable. It could be redirected to Easterhouse where it is located I suppose? Thunderwing 17:06, 2 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Agree rather with Thunderwing, though it might be added that Wikipedia has transcended its encyclopaedic mission to such an extent that it is such an important reference tool and is relied upon by people whose frame of reference is limited to their own area and to areas they plan to visit and is not globally interested in shopping per se, or in the general locale of Easterhouse. Obviously, the article cannot remain in the standard in which it currently stands. JoeKennedy1979 09:43, 4 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I'm the culprict! I was the one who made the Glasgow Fort article.

It was one of many efforts to acknowledge many different Scottish Shopping Centres designs, but it's not in great shape, neither does it have a lot of good information in it. i have actually been very disappointed in the way it has turned out, i guess there wasn't much to say about it, but it looks like there is two options a) save the article, complete start from stratch again or b) decide there are too many shopping centres in the world to worry about this particular one with cliched features, there are already something like thirteen of these sort of places from Bournemouth to Staines, London to Birmingham to Speke, Liverpool to Edinburgh in the UK.

Go ahead, i will let you put the article to bed if you think it is the right thing to do! (basically, giving you permission for deletion)

I. Thomson 22:18, 4 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Just to make sure, i forgot to say, i agree with Thunderwing, merge the article into Easterhouse and delete Glasgow Fort. i didn't know Easterhouse existed, tell you what, can i be given permission to write a new condensed Glasgow Fort article in Easterhouse. i'll do that instead.

I. Thomson 15:47, 6 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

You don't need permission to add information about Glasgow Fort in Easterhouse -- just start writing. (See Wikipedia:Be bold in updating pages. It would probably fit in well in the "Amenities" section. As an aside, totally unrelated to this deletion, some of the listed buildings like Provanhall and Blairtummock House would make interesting articles. I like to read articles about historic preservation.) So, for the closing admin, I'd suggest deleting this article and adding the information to Easterhouse as suggested. --Elkman ^(Elkspeak) 14:55, 7 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

agreed, elkspeak. my work on the Kirkcaldy article caused bother with some, because i was extending it. don't know why, thought they would be pleased? that's why and thank you for not making me look bad. i appreciate that "very" much

I. Thomson 18:19, 7 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was DELETE. The others (no pun intended) were soundly deleted, and this one is even farther out than those. I can't find that this has been confirmed by the network yet, and so basically any source is original research by derivation until that occurs. (I did note an entry on the IMDb, but it contained nothing. If I've missed some announcement, then I'd suggest that someone visit WP:DRV with a link to it). I recognise I'm effectively overruling the swing of the debate, but a consistent outcome seems far more sensible to me. -Splash - tk 16:28, 8 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Greatest Hits (Lost)[edit]

--Delete: Wikipedia is not a crystal ball...and spoilerfix.com is not a reliable source.Depressed Marvin 19:40, 1 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

This AfD nomination was incomplete. It is listed now. DumbBOT 13:22, 2 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Spoilerfix is a reliable source, however, Wikipedia is not a crystal ball. --thedemonhog talk contributions 00:17, 3 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, along with The Brig and The Man Behind the Curtain. This article is also poorly written and I don't feel like rewriting it when it's just getting deleted anyway. ShadowUltra 21:04, 3 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - Wikipedia is not a crystal ball - but deleting this article only for it to be remade in around a month seems a little pointless. I think Wikipedia is not a bureaucracy should win the day here. -Halo 13:47, 4 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep as per Halo. SenorKristobbal 17:07, 5 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
""Keep"" as per Halo as well, its pointless isnt it?... --Demosthenesdown 20:45, 5 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- There is no confirmation by ABC. You reasons for as keeping the article are as worthless as the article. Depressed Marvin 02:02, 6 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  - Comment. Depressed Marvin, be civil. Rockstar915 05:21, 6 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per Halo Mahahahaneapneap 09:04, 6 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was Delete --Bubba hotep 22:36, 7 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Gus Cummins[edit]

This is a hoax; the Gus Cummins mentioned on the Talk Page is clearly a different artist. It is claimed that he influenced Joy Division, but he was born in 1966 and they formed in 1976 and disbanded in 1980. How many 10 year olds do you know who have influenced indie music? The globetrotter 14:33, 1 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

This AfD nomination was incomplete. It is listed now. DumbBOT 13:22, 2 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy Delete as a hoax. I did the initial speedy on Gus Cummins and was suspicious of the claims of notability, but didn't know enough about the genre to follow up on it. Improbcat 15:36, 2 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep this article, it is not a hoax at all. Admittedly there may be some errors of fact in the current article. Does that mean that it should be deleted? I hope not. Surely it is better to correct the errors than propose it for deletion? Let us strive for improvement rather than destruction. Let us strive to increase "the sum of human knowledge" rather than decrease it. Incidentally, can I also enquire why it is that "The globetrotter" added the words "bold text" to the end of the current "Gus Cummins" article? Was it an editing error of some kind? If so, would he or she be so kind as to delete the words? --Don City Break 12:31, 3 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

If the article is not a hoax and the subject is notable, why don't you provide some sort of references that show this? You may want to refer to Wikipedia:Notability (people) and Wikipedia:Notability (music) for help as to what constitutes notability for wikipedia. Improbcat 13:07, 3 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks Improbcat. 'Some errors'? He is misrepresented as an entirely different artist (he surely did not win the Henry Moore Prize in 1982 when he was 16), is not a noted ex-Cathedralian, and certainly had no influence over Pigbag and Joy Division- due to him being in his early teens whilst those bands were around. If you can add any information that can clarify anything, go ahead. Don City Break, you have added a link to the talk page that clearly shows a different artist with the same name, have you checked this to confirm? The globetrotter 18:47, 3 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

On the contrary, you have provided no evidence at all that he did not have an influence over Joy Division and Pigbag. I am utterly certain that he is an ex-Cathedralian, and frankly whether or not he is "noted" is a matter very far beyond the extremely limited capabilities of the present Wikipedia kangaroo court to decide. As for the "two artists" theory, surely it should be self-evident that it is highly unlikely for two people with such an unlikely name as "Gus Cummins" to both be noted artists. The most likely explanation is that there is only one artist and that some error regarding the birthdate has been committed on one web site or another. Perhaps some Wikipedians would like to simply verify this using reliable printed references, not web sites. --Don City Break 10:12, 7 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. per Improbcat Smcafirst | Chit-Chat | SIGN posted at 02:32, 6 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. I can find no sources to establish notability. However, I also note that the initial burden here is not on the nominator to disprove the negative - i.e. find evidence that he is not notable. The initial burden is on those who want to include the article to assert notability and support their assertions through appropriate sources.--Kubigula (talk) 15:52, 7 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was Delete --Bubba hotep 22:44, 7 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Liam Mcleod[edit]

I don't think Liam McLeod has reached the notability level, how many people outside Scotland has heard of him? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Sanmarino2007v1 (talk • contribs) 2007/04/01 21:25:15

This AfD nomination was incomplete. It is listed now. DumbBOT 13:22, 2 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of football (soccer) related deletions. ChrisTheDude 15:17, 2 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy delete Does not assert notability--Ng.j 18:52, 2 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep well known British broadcaster, who works for the BBC in a number of capacities. Until today, I had never heard of Bill O'Reilly. This doesn't mean that my ignorance is a reason for deletion of his article. Cloveoil 12:29, 4 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, per Cloveoil. Englishrose 14:33, 4 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was Keep --Bubba hotep 11:19, 8 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Pirates at Ocean’s Edge[edit]

Poorly written; future game with no references; author unlikely to return to fix up article - I had to fix up his typos and even then, I didn't fix it all - author should take responsibility for cleaning up their own articles! Postcard Cathy 21:04, 1 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

This AfD nomination was incomplete. It is listed now. DumbBOT 13:23, 2 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep the unlikelihood of an author to return to finish this page is not relevant, other people can finish the work. In any case, this is still an officially announced product of a notable game, Pirates of the Spanish Main whose sets already have articles. Even if it's for some reason not released, that itself would be a reason to have content. BTW, AFD nominations go at the TOP of pages, not the bottom. I've noticed you've done that before, please stop doing that. FrozenPurpleCube 15:28, 2 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

BTW, this does probably need to be moved, since ' is different from ’, but I'm not sure which is the preferred on Wikipedia or how to do it properly with the AFD going on. FrozenPurpleCube 17:26, 2 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been added to the list of CVG deletions. — Kaustuv Chaudhuri (via) 13:54, 3 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment: not a video game, thus not in the scope of the project. Dread Lord CyberSkull ✎☠ 07:41, 6 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - Articles on Wikipedia do not belong to a single author. It is not up to the creator of the article to provide all the sources and complete the entire article; that is the domain of the entire Wikipedia community. However, I would like to see sources that assert the series' notability. --Scottie_theNerd 08:13, 4 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Well, as the product of a notable company, I would certainly assert its notability through that. More importantly though, this series itself has won the Origins Vanguard award, the sales figures have been quite respectable, I don't know the exact figures offhand, but it is in the millions. FrozenPurpleCube 14:19, 4 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  - From what I'm seeing, all the articles with the exception of the first game are stub articles. Either they need to be expanded, or merged to the main article. --Scottie_theNerd 09:10, 6 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    - Well, I don't disagree with you that the pages could use improvement and expansion, but I think that most collectible games work better with the pages being separate. FrozenPurpleCube 19:53, 6 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: Expansion to a noted series, the fact that the nominator had to do some cleanup doesn't mean the article should be deleted; I've cleaned up many new articles myself.

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. Seraphimblade ^{Talk to me} 19:38, 8 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Stuck fetishism[edit]

Non compliant with the policy attributable. Read the policy and you will see it is non-compliant, then if you search for reliable attribution for the article in accordance with policy as I have, I think you will find it qualifies for deletion as un-attribut-able. Lotusduck 03:39, 31 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep I know this isnt quite standard, but I would like to suggest that perhaps any subject about which there is a google Group or other online community with more than a few members, it is notable. this is how the web is documented. It means that information exists. DGG 03:49, 31 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Of course it should be cleaned up, but the large amount of forum links surely say something about the subject. bibliomaniac 1 5 03:51, 31 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Relevance? My afd isn't about notability. AFD discussion closers are authorized to ignore votes that have nothing to do with the reasons for nomination and run contrary to policy and even guidelines.Lotusduck 03:54, 31 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: wouldn't this mostly be a minor variation on bondage? If so, it could probably be merged there. -- Antaeus Feldspar 06:41, 31 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

If it had any content, I would agree. However things as they stand, it's a neologism definition with no sources. Nothin' to merge.Lotusduck 03:52, 1 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Totally fails the mandatory requirements of WP:ATT not to mention having no reliable sources and being unverifiable. Wikipedia is not the place for original research articles about your internet fetish group. NeoFreak 12:30, 31 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

This AfD nomination was incomplete. It is listed now. DumbBOT 13:23, 2 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per NeoFreak. I'm not seeing any sources, and this is at best an extremely obscure fetish. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 14:32, 2 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete lacks reliable sources. What external links there are go to sites which demand viewers' email or other things you might not wish to give out to view pictures or videos. Will stipulate there are "fetishes" about every conceivable action, object, condition or body part, but each needs multiple verifiable independent sources with nontrivial coverage to deserve articles in Wikipedia. Edison 19:53, 2 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per the above; fails WP:ATT --Haemo 00:36, 3 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep It could use some editing and cleanup but I see no reason to delete. --Darth Borehd 01:02, 7 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Then I suggest you read our attribution policy. NeoFreak 00:59, 8 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Effectively unsourced. —Cryptic 01:19, 7 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Links given already might qualify as weak attribution. More severe interpretations of WP:ATT, fail the pokemon test, because most pokemon cannot be attributed to any strong sources. Can someone clarify when a strong source is necissary and when a weak source is appropriate? 69.140.15.143 20:04, 7 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

There is no such thing as a "weak" source or a "strong" source. There is only reliable and unreliable. Pokemon has primary sources in its published material. This article does not have that benefit as it is not discussing a product. NeoFreak 01:01, 8 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The multiple web sites devoted to it are such sources. they demonstrate the existence of the fetish=fascination based on emotional, usually sexual, feelings. Whatever they may or may document about individual's behavior in the real world is not the issue--they document that people have a fascination for the idea. I don't; I'd never even heard of it. They documented it to me. I still do not see why anybody would find this appealing, but it has been shown that they do. I wish others to have increase in knowledge from the article that I did. DGG 06:43, 8 April 2007 (UTC)the same[reply]

No, they are not such sources. Since they fail the criteria of reliable sources they can't be used. Remember, as stated in the very begining of the the attribution policy: The threshold for inclusion in Wikipedia is whether material is attributable to a reliable published source, not whether it is true. I don't doubt that people have a sort of "stuck fetishism" we just can't verify that according to the current policy for inclusion. This means it has to be deleted. NeoFreak 16:55, 8 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

All of the sources listed in Pokemon, are self-published or relly entirely on self-published sources. It no more follows that a major corporation is a reliable source for a neologism refering to a no where else existing fantasy creature, then that a sizable community is a reliable source for a neologism refering to an abstract pycho-social identification. This doesn't speak to notability, but if no sexologist has written about this paraphilia, the writing of a fetishist is a primary source. There seems to be enough non-contensious, non-selfserving information between the various links given, for a short stub. I see strong need for article revision, and improved sourcing format, but I'm still not seeing a consistant policy for sourcing which supports a deletion. 69.140.15.143 14:07, 8 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The use of Primary sources is ok if the article is about the entity (not a group, subject or demographic) that is releasing the information. OR it is an article about published fiction then that fiction can be used as a primary source. This isn't either. NeoFreak 16:55, 8 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. - Mailer Diablo 05:03, 7 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The Brig (Lost)[edit]

--Delete: Wikipedia is not a crystal ball. spoilerfix.com is not a reliable source. Depressed Marvin 19:42, 1 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

This AfD nomination was incomplete. It is listed now. DumbBOT 13:23, 2 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Future Tv episode articles are made all the time and will be remade when it airs anyway. Lizzie Harrison 15:10, 2 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

But it hasn't been confirmed. Wikipedia is not a crystal ball.

Delete Spoilerfix is a reliable source, however, Wikipedia is not a crystal ball. --thedemonhog talk contributions 00:16, 3 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, along with The Man Behind the Curtain and Greatest Hits (Lost). Someone removed the delete tag from the top of the article. ShadowUltra 21:01, 3 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. - Mailer Diablo 05:04, 7 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The Man Behind the Curtain (Lost)[edit]

--Delete: Wikipedia is not a crystal ball. spoilerfix.com is not a reliable source. --Depressed Marvin 19:44, 1 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

This AfD nomination was incomplete. It is listed now. DumbBOT 13:23, 2 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Spoilerfix is a reliable source, however, Wikipedia is not a crystal ball. --thedemonhog talk contributions 00:14, 3 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, along with The Brig and Greatest Hits (Lost). This article is also poorly written and I don't feel like rewriting it when it's getting deleted anyway. ShadowUltra 21:00, 3 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete It's not that wikipedia is not a crytal ball (since we have Category:Upcoming television episodes) but the issue is that the episode has not been announced by ABC. Although there is a The Man Behind the Curtain at IMDb. --FateClub 23:12, 3 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Premature creation. - Denny 17:47, 4 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was keep. - Mailer Diablo 05:06, 7 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia community[edit]

This article is redundant and is already mentioned in the Wikipedia article DXRAW 10:06, 2 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Already nominated for deletion on March 7, 2007. Result was "no consensus": Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Wikipedia_community

Strong keep Heavily and adequetly sourced now. Too large to fork back into Wikipedia by far per forking policies and practice. - Denny 13:09, 2 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

This AfD nomination was incomplete. It is listed now. DumbBOT 13:23, 2 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete; self-referential. Tizio 13:27, 2 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Did you see the huge variety of sources? Passes BIO/N/ATT, but self-ref is not a valid deletion reason under policy. - Denny 13:28, 2 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

IMO the threshold of notability for Wikipedia-related subjects should be set considerably higher than for other subject. Writing about things one knowns directly (rather than starting from the sources) easily leads to lack of perspective and bias. Tizio 13:53, 2 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

An excellent point, I very much agree. -- Ned Scott 17:26, 2 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Something being hard to write is hardly a reason to delete it. - Denny 19:07, 2 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think that writing on this subject is not particularly hard. The hard part is to evaluate whether what's written it is good. If this article is written by a member of the community and evaluated by other members of the same community, a bias (in whatever direction) would be hardly noticed. For general articles like Wikipedia that will be countered by the high visibility of the article; the same cannot be said for all articles in User:Tizio/Wikipedia; some of them have very few editors. Tizio 12:22, 3 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - yes it is self-referential to an extent. But with things like the Essjay controversy, WP has been written about in third party sources. — RevRagnarok ^{Talk Contrib} 14:19, 2 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete or merge into the main Wikipedia article. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 14:30, 2 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

What policy based deletion reason? It fails not one policy requirement. Also, its too big to merge into Wikipedia. - Denny 17:20, 2 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Both articles could use a trim in certain areas, and the topic of the community is important enough to push something else off Wikipedia and to a second page. A merge makes a lot of sense to me. -- Ned Scott 17:24, 2 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Wikipedia:Avoid self-references for a start. It seems to me that while an overview of the wikipedia community makes sense in the Wikipedia article, an article of its own is a bit much. As Ned pointed out, both articles could stand a trim. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 19:03, 2 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

So you're saying, no matter how much coverage notability the community of editors get, no article because it's self-referential? That's backwards logic, and a made-up exemption for a specific topic that is now provenly notable. - Denny 19:09, 2 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

weak keep seems to be referenced adaquately now. Yes it's a bit silly that we have such extensive Wikipedia topics, but what do you really expect? ASR was never meant to remove any references to Wikipedia, just unreferencable ones. If the media cares about something, Wikipedia can have an article on it... apparently the media cares about the WIkipedia community for whatever reason. It would be biased actually to remove a properly referenced article only because it was about Wikipedia. At the very least this should be merged if possible. --W.marsh 17:16, 2 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Merge or delete, most of the important stuff is covered in existing articles. As a core element of how Wikipedia works, I'm not sure it makes sense to split the sub topic to it's own article. The Wikipedia community is how Wikipedia works. Being a self-reference is not an issue, so that has no factor in my position (see WP:SELF, where it talks more about style-type concerns for downstream use). References are also not an issue, as it is well referenced. However, it doesn't make sense to me to split such a topic, and much of what it covers (that other articles do not) is trivial. -- Ned Scott 17:23, 2 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment If the concensus is to merge, can we please not delete the current article and leave the growth/sources etc. in history? If it needs merging (after all) it can always later fork back out if necessary. - Denny 17:42, 2 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- If the article is merged, then the current article is not deleted, but is available in the history. FrozenPurpleCube 19:06, 2 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep O.K. Lets review: There is a differentiation in opinion or lack of understanding on the interpretation of policies herein, setforth — IMHO.

First: WP:SELF (self-referencing) is a logical fallacy argument in this case. We are not self-referencing. See the examples provided on the guideline page for a better understanding. Additionally, the article is too big to merge and will only expand in time.
Second: There is not a small amount of coverage on the community, there is a bunch of coverage. Some of the references have already been provided in the article. There are multiple, reliable and secondary references available on the topic, we aren't not quoting ourselves or referencing from Wikipedia or a mirror cite. Many sources have been established in the body of the article. Please overivew and read the references and additional sources.
Third: The article has a reasonable potential to grow into an expanded and yet even more informative article. A redirect or merge would be restricting.
Fourth: Every year the community will become more notable. After all, we are the ones who built Wikpedia from the gound up. That is something to be inherently proud of too. The subject matter is notable, important, and gives insight to the reader about the fellowship of the Wikipedia community.
Fifth: The community is a different subject than and from Wikipedia. The community is the people who collaborate and work together to present quality articles. For example, Wikipedia mainspace articles, is the presented work. In a nutshell, the community is the group of people who edit and volunteer their time. However, Wikipedia is the content of the project's work. Cordially, :) - Mr.Guru (^talk/_contribs) 19:03, 2 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

For topics like international politics, the press may be sufficiently reliable to be considered a good source; for topics like "what's going on the Internet", it's a different story; see the Essjay controversy (another good target for deletion), for example. Even assuming that the sources are good, writing an article requires selecting the sources and organizing the material; that's where bias and lack of persepective may be introduced. Tizio 12:38, 3 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep I suppose this article could use some more improvement, but conceptually, it is not a problem, so I remain convinced it shold be kept. FrozenPurpleCube 19:06, 2 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Per Mr. Guru and the numerous references supporting the article. Notable subject, well referenced, and not the same as Wikipedia itself. Edison 19:50, 2 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep for reason mentioned above, SqueakBox 20:56, 2 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per SqueakBox. Acalamari 22:31, 2 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Keep Because it is a vital page of the representation of the Wikipedia community. Effer 22:33, 2 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

No kidding. Isn't that the name of the article? So is the article of My Space a vital representation of My Space? --FateClub 01:30, 5 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - I'm pretty sure this is a topic that's encyclopedic. I'm not exactly happy with the current article, but that's no reason to delete it. --Haemo 00:34, 3 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - hoax, no reliable source to verify existence of this group. Aleksi Peltola 03:28, 3 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

This has to be joke statement. - Denny 06:04, 3 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Maybe Aleksi was thinking to the Wikipedia cabal :-) Tizio 12:22, 3 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Oh, ha. - Denny 15:14, 3 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Still suggesting Merge to English Wikipedia or possibly Move to Wikipedia:. If kept under this title, this has to be either renamed ("English Wikipedia community") or expanded to cover other Wikipedias. As it is, it's a bit weak. --wwwwolf (barks/growls) 05:46, 3 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Expanding it to cover all Wikipedia editor communities is a great idea. - Denny 06:04, 3 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per various arguements above, and I'll also advise expanding this article to cover the non-english wikipedia communities. Presumably there must have been articles on this regarding the german wikipedia at least. --Xyzzyplugh 20:01, 3 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep agree with Quackguru.Shindo9 Hikaru 01:03, 4 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete vanity, or are we writing articles about the You Tube Community, My Space Community, Friendster Community. $...\rightarrow -\infty$ . A community? Are we gathering in a leased building with robes and candles, do we chant? We are just users of the same website. Also, why is the list of references longer than the article itself? --FateClub 01:30, 5 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

If the sources exist to demonstrate their notability, yes, we should have an article on all of those. - Denny ^(talk) 18:18, 5 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, notable, too soon to nominate again anyway. Everyking 06:49, 5 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep and expand per Mr. Guru -- Ianblair23 (talk) 10:16, 5 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

This article has recently expanded. Please overview the current version. I recommend the merge tag be removed because the community is an independent topic and most votes are for keep. Consensus is for keep and not merge. Wikipedia is about content. However, the Wikipedia community is about people, which is to be respected, and not swallowed by 'net monster of' pedia. I call on the fellowship of the community to remove the silly merge tag. Thanx. :) - Mr.Gurü (^talk/_contribs) 17:48, 6 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. For future reference, streets can't be speedied. --Core desat 05:05, 7 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Cherry Gardens[edit]

Article about a small street whose sole claim to notability appears to be that it gives its name to a bus stop. WP:NOT an indiscriminate collection of information. Refused CSD A7, contested prod. Mr Stephen 13:26, 2 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete the crap out of it. — RevRagnarok ^{Talk Contrib} 14:20, 2 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete unless expanded but allow the full 5 days for improvement without speedying - the creator's edit history shows a pattern of sub-stubs on transportation which he goes on to expand, so he may be planning to improve this. - Iridescenti (talk to me!) 17:45, 2 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Article describes it as "small side road" and there are no references to show it is important enough to have an article. Wikipedia is not a random collection of information. Edison 19:42, 2 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy Delete we don't need an article about some street, unless something notable happened on that street. Acalamari 22:30, 2 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. --Core desat 05:05, 7 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Michael Sadler[edit]

It does not appear to meet WP:N; the article asserts this person has played in Barnet F.C., but only as a reserve. Tizio 13:45, 2 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of football (soccer) related deletions. ChrisTheDude 14:10, 2 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Barnet F.C. would have been an amateur club during this person's career in any case (having not gained promotion to the Football League until 1991), definitely meaning he would fail WP:BIO. Qwghlm 14:16, 2 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete unless it can be proven that he also played for a team in The Football League or a cricket team in the County Championship - both teams he is listed as having played for don't even come close to satisfying WP:BIO (Barnet having been in the Athenian League during the 1950s)..... ChrisTheDude 14:28, 2 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Weak delete - if he played for Barnet in 1958, he may have been in the FA Amateur Cup (a more significant trophy in those days than it is under its FA Trophy name now) team of 1958-59 - but unless he can be shown to have played a significant part in the cup run, or gone on to better things somewhere else, certainly not notable if he just sat on the bench for two seasons. - Iridescenti (talk to me!) 17:52, 2 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- A pedant writes: he wouldn't even have managed to sit on the bench, as substitutes had not been introduced in the '50s.... :-) ChrisTheDude 23:30, 2 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete No evidence of amateur first team appearances, never mind professional ones. Oldelpaso 19:21, 2 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

DeleteAmateur reserve player. Tangerines 02:40, 3 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. --Core desat 05:06, 7 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Tempest Rose[edit]

Delete - Seems to be a high school band with zero notability or references. Anon IP removed {{prod}}, {{orphan}}, and {{notability}} without comment, so official AfD required as contest prod. — RevRagnarok ^{Talk Contrib} 14:09, 2 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. No evidence of notability (despite the claim that the band is "widely known" for its views on music piracy), and no references except the band's MySpace page. EALacey 17:53, 2 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:MUSIC. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 19:41, 2 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete not notable. Acalamari 22:29, 2 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Dont Delete. This band is a real band that has had multiple concerts in the past and has a few planned for the future. They are real. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 205.221.1.253 (talk) 13:40, 3 April 2007 (UTC).[reply]
- Comment: We didn't say they weren't real, just that they are not notable enough to warrant an encyclopedic entry. — RevRagnarok ^{Talk Contrib} 14:01, 3 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
~~Dont Delete~~. The Wikipedia page now has links to the websites of the places they played at. They also have references to those places as well. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 205.221.1.253 (talk) 14:22, 3 April 2007 (UTC).[reply]
- Comment: (Removed double vote.) Since you are coming in from what I assume is their school, please review WP:COI, WP:AUTO, and WP:RS before continuing to edit the article. — RevRagnarok ^{Talk Contrib} 14:38, 3 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment. The sites linked added appear to make no mention of Tempest Rose. They therefore cannot function as references for any claims made about the band, and cannot provide evidence of the band's notability. EALacey 16:51, 3 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:MUSIC. feydey 19:20, 3 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, non notable. Ziing 22:46, 3 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. --Core desat 05:06, 7 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Sweet Seduction[edit]

Unsigned band, near-orphan, lack of sources. kingboyk 14:13, 2 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete unsigned bands are rarely notable. Just shy of a speedy deletion due to claim that they were covered in a magazine. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 19:42, 2 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Inadequate notability at this time. Once signed may very be successful at which point page can be reposted but until then wikipedia is not a crystal ball. A1octopus 12:14, 4 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Weak delete may have had just enough third-party coverage to justify a reasonable stub but I fail to see how this could, at present time, be a properly attributed article of more than 3 lines. Pascal.Tesson 19:08, 6 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep It's a small article that I'm sure is not going to overfill Wikipedia's hard drive. There is no reason to delete it. --Darth Borehd 01:04, 7 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per A1Octopus. Jerry 01:10, 7 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, fails WP:MUSIC. No secondary sources. —Cryptic 01:20, 7 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was unperson'd.--Wizardman 17:05, 21 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

++ungood;[edit]

A dictdef for a geek joke. This has no real potential for expansion (a bunch of sources have been added that supposedly show notability, but they're just pictures of notable people or fansites), and no real hope for an encyclopedia article. - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire | past ops) 19:03, 17 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

delete as nomination. Springnuts 20:51, 17 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as NN geekcruft. Doubleplusungood (the Orwell version) is a redirect, but I don't think this one merits even that. -- Dhartung | Talk 21:39, 17 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, a non-notable neologism with no acceptable sources. The fact that it was coined to put on a T-shirt underscores this further. — Krimpet (talk/review) 22:39, 17 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as non-notable joke. Can only ever be a dicdef. WjBscribe 23:29, 17 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
delete a dicdef at best. Niffweed17, Destroyer of Chickens 03:18, 18 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete the C++/Newspeak connection has already been discussed to adequate detail (with sources and all) in C++#The name "C++". I don't think we need to explain all possible variations of it... --wwwwolf (barks/growls) 08:39, 18 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, naturally. ManinBlack, I see this delete proposal stems from a comment on your talk page citing ++ungood; and newbie as examples of dictionary definition pages, and citing apparent inconsistency in enforcement of dictdef policy. Since you haven't proposed newbie for deletion despite that obviously being a dictdef page, I tend to agree with the sentiment of that comment. Or does the ++ungood; page simply lack a stub footer? Lack of potential for expansion should not be a cause for deletion - otherwise, we should delete the entry on Shakespeare because he's dead and potential for article growth has been limited by his demise. There are a lot of articles that fall under the dictdef definition - Orange (word) springs to mind, as does much of the rest of the Words category, which should probably be removed. On T-shirts: I suspect that there are rather more people (including the notable Guido van Rossum [30] and the rather less notable Danny O'Brien and Aaron Swartz) wearing ++ungood; on a T-shirt than there are wearing Wikipedia. Krimpet - Neologism, yes. No acceptable sources? Hardly. The history of the term is well-documented, and the provenance of the sources is good. Speaking of provenance of sources, Wwwwwolf, I've fixed the inaccurate citation on the C++ page. You're very welcome. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Lloyd Wood (talk • contribs)
Newbie could probably be cleaned up. This obscure joke-only term really can't, due to a lack of references we can use. - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire | past ops) 19:17, 19 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - it is a dicdef. -- Whpq 20:04, 19 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - I feel that since this article includes one of the words used in the following book, it might/should be redirected to 1984...? --Įиʛ§øç βїʛβяøтњєя ^{Rant | Contributions} 16:33, 20 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Btw, Lloyd Wood, please sign your posts. --Įиʛ§øç βїʛβяøтњєя ^{Rant | Contributions} 16:33, 20 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  - Actually, this article was created because I discovered a redirect from ++ungood to Newspeak already existed and built on that. On signing posts - the history log already holds that information. I don't see the value in signing posts when you're anonymous. Is newbie a dictdef, or not? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Lloyd Wood (talk • contribs)
    - Newbie is not a dicdef, as it is used very much in popular culture, in gaming, among others. However, the article in itself needs some major cleaning up. Nobody actually looks for ++ungood; it should just redirect to Newspeak. SIGN YOUR POSTS! It makes it easier to know who wrote what. --Įиʛ§øç βїʛβяøтњєя ^{Rant | Contributions} 23:51, 20 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was DELETE. -Splash - tk 16:46, 8 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Angelo_Plessas[edit]

Not notable visual artist. Sources lacking. Bus stop 14:45, 2 April 2007 (UTC) Not notable visual artist. Sources lacking.[reply]

Delete per nom. No sources. Website is painful and difficult to navigate and blogs are not credible sources. �The preceding unsigned comment was added by Vaniac (talk � contribs) 16:38, 2 April 2007 (UTC).[reply]
Delete per nom. - Aagtbdfoua 13:38, 7 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Important visual artist with partecipations in international shows. If envy was a virtue, Bus stop would be a King.

Comment: What makes you think I am envious? Bus stop 18:23, 7 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Sorry to say so but it's very clear. You are an artist and you detest that more succesfull people like Plessas and Manetas get attention. �The preceding unsigned comment was added by AlainLa (talk � contribs) 19:24, 7 April 2007 (UTC).[reply]

Comment: Yes, I am an artist. So what? You haven't the foggiest idea whether I am envious or not. And you haven't the foggiest idea whether I am more or less successful than the two names you mention. The simple, and relevant, fact is that Wikipedia has standards. You are certainly permitted to create articles. But you have to understand that article deletion is also a perfectly legitimate function on Wikipedia. I nominated this article for deletion not because of envy, but because I see little indication that the world has taken this artist seriously. The sources cited do not indicate that critical notice was taken of this person as an artist. And, in reading the article, I really don't see anything interesting being discussed. I see only the assertion that this artist is important. I see little of substance in the article. And the sources consist of a personal web site, a blog, and examples of the artist's Internet art. I like it. But aesthetic decisions do not really have bearing whether or not an article should exist on Wikipedia for an artist. Bus stop 19:55, 7 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: Well, AlainLa is wrong to assume that Bus stop is a frustrated artist. Apparently, he is simply misinformed at the subjects he is so passionately against. The fact that Angelo Plessas is a known artist is proved by the fact that he exhibited at the Valencia Biennial together with really well known artists and in many other exhibitions. About Manetas, his long carieer makes ridiculous even to discuss his relevance. About Neen, is evindent that Bus can't grasp the artistic point and he preferes to delete what he doesn't get. But I see that he has interesting contributions to cinetic art etc an art that is actually very close to Neen. Would't be better to try understand than destroy dear Bus stop? Did you ever visited www.neen.org? Did you ever checked the work of the artists you are deleting? Door64 16:05, 7 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: Neen.org is a beautiful web site. I grant you that. But it doesn't really support the inclusion of these articles, does it? Bus stop 01:50, 8 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: Would you post a link to your paintings so we can see them? Curious.. Whoever deletes others should at least be a valid artist hmself.. Fran1980 21:02, 7 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: Fran1980 -- How do you define "valid artist?" Bus stop 04:46, 8 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: Well, it would be enough for you to show us that you have made some paintings and maybe an exhibition somewhere (or I am asking too much?) Fran1980 01:29, 8 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. Please note: Bus stop has not "deleted" any articles. He has participated in discussions, voiced his opinion and taken part in an important aspect of Wikipedia. Ultimately, the decision to delete is an administrator's to make based on proposed deletion discussions as per WP:AFD. Please do not engage in personal attacks. Read WP:ATTACK. Thank you. Freshacconci 13:35, 8 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, limited assertion of notability. While there's plenty of external links, the page as it is written doesn't really indicate anything major from the artist. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Sigma 7 (talk • contribs)

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. - Mailer Diablo 05:07, 7 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Mel Gibbs[edit]

No indication that she is notable outside of a small area. She appears to be like thousands of other high school students. CambridgeBayWeather (Talk) 15:02, 2 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Probable conflict of interest (see article creator). Only contributions by creator are to this article. Notability not established. - Richfife 15:11, 2 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. I've no doubt she's well respected in her local area, but there's no evidence that she meets Wikipedia:Notability (people). EALacey 16:02, 2 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Delete. Wikipedia is not MySpace. Not everyone needs or deserves an article on Wikipedia. It gets tiring to see people who think they do. Not to be harsh but anyone with some common sense can tell that this person does not meet Wikipedia:Notability (people). Thanks and sorry. Vaniac 16:35, 2 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Provisional Strong Delete - the creator's (and probable subject's) edit summary mentions something about being runner up in "Youth of the Year", which could (conceivably) be enough to make her of interest, but the fact she's not bothered to mention it makes me doubt it. Take it to MySpace unless very speedily improved. - Iridescenti (talk to me!) 17:58, 2 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- The "Youth of the Year" might be this thing [31] from the AU government. Doesn't look like enough to establish notability. cab 03:27, 3 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Delete - not notable, no sources. Fails multiple policies unless sourced. Hell, I could probably make an article about myself, by this standard. --Haemo 00:39, 3 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete (or userfy if the creator starts contributing to other articles). 644 GHits, mostly not about the subject of the article but rather some guy in the US (a political blogger or something). Single award won [32], but other than that, nothing to meet WP:BIO. cab 03:27, 3 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Keep This a real article, these deletion judgements were being made on a newly started wiki which only had a paragraph written. The article has been updated and is being continued to be updated. Why can't someone that isn't travelling the word, and very famous, who is still at school, make a difference and be noticed for what she is doing. She hasn't done huge amazing things like some others have, but she is making a difference, it doesn't matter how big or small it still is significant. The fact that she is putting others in her comunity before her self, and that she is giving time and money to support people that might not have what you and I have, makes her a notiable person. --M. 17:20, 4 April 2007 (UTC)— Mel735 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]
- Please familiarize yourself with Wikipedia's guidelines on notability for people. Making a difference and supporting people is great, but it's not part of the generally accepted criteria used to assess notability. -SpuriousQ (talk) 07:37, 4 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was KEEP, apparently reluctantly. The nominator appears to eventually agree on notability also. -Splash - tk 16:50, 8 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Marc Ostrofsky[edit]

This seems like an autobiography, it is biased and is written like an advertisment. It cites no sources and thus can not be proven credible or notable. Work must be done to fix the bias in this article and lack of verifiability. Vaniac 15:07, 2 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

~~Sad Keep~~ He's, um, what's a civil way of saying <expletive deleted>? But he's out there. Big mover and shaker in the cybersquatting world. Article needs to be cut down and refactored to more clearly show what he actually does for a living. - Richfife 15:19, 2 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment - Why are all the links red then? Vaniac 16:14, 2 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  - Change vote to Weak Delete. You've got a point. He sold an URL for a lot of money, he has a bunch of other URLs up for sale (and he's clearly using Wikipedia to market them). He has severe problems with WP:COI and WP:OWN (he sent me a testy email when I cut the article back and restored it). Not notable enough to keep. - Richfife 20:19, 2 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  - FYI In case there was any doubt, the article is provably autobiographical. - Richfife 20:21, 2 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    - Comment He sent me an email too, the authors attitude is fairly irritating. I understand that he has made a lot of money but being rich does not entail a page, and at the very least, the information about all these unknown websites should be cut down. The fact that he owns "VietnamWar.com" is far from important information. That would also deal with the advertising issue. Vaniac 21:24, 2 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment The afd tags on the page were deleted by Marcmpc. Granted some work has been done, but the author seems to want to disrupt the AFD process. Vaniac 15:41, 2 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I cut the article way back. If there is a modern guy that stands as an argument in favor of Marxism, it's Ostrofsky. - Richfife 15:45, 2 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep I just did a further trimming and Wikification. Refs need to be added, but he is very obviously notable. If it were borderline, the emailing of eds. would have inclines me to delete. We should not confuse the wish to remove his activities from the RW with the wish to remove his article from here. I doubt that WP adds all that much to his advertising.

While writing this, the original ed. made a number of reverts to restore deleted content, in apparent violation of the 3RR, which is being reported. It would be very tempting to change my!vote to Delete on this basis, but an objective point of view requires the admission that his business activities are notable. DGG 04:39, 3 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I think you're right, he is notable. I also think that the author should be banned from editing this page, he has complicated this afd process so much, has been stubborn, and clearly has a conflict of interest. Vaniac 06:35, 3 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, per nom. While there is an assertion of notability, it isn't supported by external links, references, or attributions. At best, he's been in the book of world records - which isn't notable by itself. --Sigma 7 05:40, 4 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep He is, sadly, notable, and there are secondary sources. I agree with DGG that we should not want to delete the article as a consequence of wanting to ban him for his apparently bad faith activities. UnitedStatesian 15:14, 5 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Could we at least ban him for his bad faith activities then? Vaniac 16:34, 5 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment WP:ANI is the place to go for that. My instinct is that he won't be around much longer, though. - Richfife 19:08, 5 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Appears notable. I added a couple of links. Stammer 17:17, 5 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

(Moved long piece by article subject / author to article talk page) - Richfife 15:18, 18 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was REDIRECT to John Cena. -Splash - tk 16:52, 8 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

John Cena Sr.[edit]

Fails WP:BIO. Subject has no credible independent biography, no significant recognized awards or honors, no Wide name recognition, no widely recognized contributions, no features in credible news media, no significant roles in any form of media, no fan base or a significant "cult" following. In addition, there are no reliable sources whatsoever for what little information there is (failing WP:A). Subject works for two companies both of whose WP stubs have been deleted. Suriel1981 15:17, 2 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete No sources, fails WP:A and WP:BIO. One Night In Hackney₃₀₃ 20:43, 2 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. Cena was in attendence as a manager at the Tony Rumble Memorial Brawl in 2006, although the only profiles I could find is his "official" one at ECCWrestling.com and Powerhouse Wrestling. The only other source I found included a discussion regarding his rumored purchase of the Millenium Wresting Federation [33], although I'm not sure how "real" this report is despite it being covered by PWInsider.com and other websites. I believe the main issue are any of the promotions or wrestlers he managed notable ? MadMax 00:46, 3 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Pretty much. Also, announcers and small-time managers don't tend to have their own articles. ŞůṜīΣĻ¹98¹^Speak_Sign 00:49, 3 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect/Merge to his son's article, some contents can be verified [34], but as a whole, I'd say the information would best belong as part of the more notable family member. FrozenPurpleCube 00:39, 3 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I say delete, not notable or interesting. Govvy 14:30, 6 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to John Cena. Blacklist 17:29, 7 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to John Cena. His indy career is NN, and just appearing on WWE TV twice doesn't mean much. TJ Spyke 01:53, 8 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. --Core desat 05:08, 7 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

List of songs containing covert references to real musicians[edit]

There was an extremely contentious AfD for this article back in December. Harsh words and claims of bad faith flew, the nom withdrew his nomination, and it was tagged for cleanup and verification.

Three months later, however, virtually nothing has been done to clean up this article. Thus I am renominating the article for deletion for the following reasons:

Wikipedia is not an indiscriminate collection of information, and Wikipedia is not a directory. Allusions, references, and "namechecks" to other musicians is extremely common in popular music.
Tons of original research, speculation, and questionable entries. Examples:
- "You Can't Always Get What You Want" references Jimi Hendrix? The only sources I can find for this claim on Google are a couple of user-driven "song meanings" type sites, where a couple people speculate that "Mr. Jimmy" in the song may refer to Hendrix. (Instead of, say, Jimmy Miller, who played drums on this track?)
- "Planet Earth" by Devo references Alice Cooper? Wikipedia is the only place I can find this claim.
Of the few that are sourced, many of the sources are just as questionable, or misrepresented.
- Example: the source for the claim that David Bowie's "The Jean Genie" references Iggy Pop is a blurb from a Bowie fan site, which claims that is was "supposedly" written about Pop, and that Bowie may have said it was about Jean Genet.

A lot of people seem to hold this article dear to them, particularly on WP:ILIKEIT, WP:USEFUL, and WP:NOHARM grounds, as evidenced by the prior AfD, but honestly, due to the indiscriminate and speculative nature of the list, it's not meant for Wikipedia (though I'd fully support transwikiing this article to a more appropriate wiki if one exists), and the fact that this article has still not been cleaned up underscores this. Krimpet (talk/review) 15:19, 2 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Oh dear god, DELETE - "Covert references"? That would be a covert reference to original research. Otto4711 18:02, 2 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Overt Delete. Trivia at its worst, lists like this do WP:NOT belong. Arkyan  ^(talk) 19:24, 2 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Where's "How Can You Expect to be Taken Seriously" by Pet Shop Boys? "The Perfect Couple" by Paul Heaton? "The Joker" by Steve Miller? "Garden Party" by Rick Nelson? I'm not voting to delete because of these omissions, though, I'm voting because this doesn't seem to pass WP:NOT and seems likely to be a magnet for contention and OR (without significant encyclopedic value to outweigh those concerns). Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 03:36, 3 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Useless although WP:ILIKEIT. TonyTheTiger (talk/cont/bio) 20:03, 2 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, even though I just added "Toad-O Line" by Frank Zappa to the list. ("I Have Been in You" by Sheik Yerbouti is still missing.) How can anyone qualify that a particular reference in a song is a covert reference to a real musician? Unless the artists themselves have made a clear declaration of the reference, then it's probably just speculation on someone's part. Oh, and there are probably hundreds more references in Frank Zappa's music alone. --Elkman ^(Elkspeak) 20:22, 2 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Vague, potentially endless, unreferenced. The place for properly referenced material like this is in an article on the song, or on the artists involved. Brianyoumans 20:53, 2 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per the other delete reasons. Acalamari 22:27, 2 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - this appears to be a mish-mash of non-notable half-truths, OR, and outright falsehoods. Not even remotely encyclopedic. --Haemo 00:40, 3 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per the last one. JuJube 06:25, 3 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete indiscriminate collection of information. --Ezeu 04:25, 7 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was Speedy delete g4, see Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Neen art. NawlinWiki 21:10, 3 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

NEEN[edit]

Non notable visual arts movement Bus stop 15:20, 2 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

We've been here before. See Neen (AfD discussion) and Neen art (AfD discussion). Uncle G 16:05, 2 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as spam and recreation of pages with different names.Vaniac 16:41, 2 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment May I propose a blanket deletion of NEEN and all the artists that participate in this "movement"? Vaniac 16:41, 2 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete as re-creation. Also suggest deleting Miltos Manetas as well. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 19:43, 2 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy Delete G4 (repost) per Uncle G's note. So tagged. --Dennisthe2 01:55, 3 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was Redirected --Bubba hotep 11:43, 8 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Brooklyn Wonders (PL)[edit]

A team page already existed, and with the correct team name. See: Brooklyn Ward's Wonders Neonblak 15:19, 2 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Changed to redirect - per suggestion, this can be closed. Neonblak 21:17, 2 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was NO CONSENSUS. Nominator agrees it might be salvageable, and it is harsh indeed to delete something that predates the Internet because no sources for it are on the Internet. Cyberskull's remedy seems most appropriate for now. -Splash - tk 16:55, 8 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

MAD (massively multiplayer online role-playing game)[edit]

This artielc elacs any sources, is plainly written by one of the creators, is non-neutral in tone, is original research from primary sources (check the connection logs image), but it might just be salvageable. Source it or lose it, I'd say. Guy (Help!) 15:27, 2 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

What do you need as further information? I am talking about old times, more than 20 years ago, when Internet did not exist. BITNET has long disappeared now. The birth of MMORPG much before Internet was, I believed, of some interest for the history of MMORPG. I have a plentiful of information I can upload, such as user testimonies, user asking for having a copy of MAD at their University for instance. Does it help? Vincent Lextrait 16:14, 2 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

It would help if you could produce magazines or books that talk about the game, even a website that mentions them. FrozenPurpleCube 16:32, 2 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I just have testimonies of users of the time (I can upload them), and can produce modern testimonies from a few of them. I guess for instance that the inventor of Revised LISTSERV, Eric Thomas, founder of L-Soft will kindly confirm the information. Vincent Lextrait 16:57, 2 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Testimonies don't work so well for Wikipedia, what you want is sources that are actually published and contain the information. A magazine, a newspaper article, a book, whatever. If you don't have that, it will be unlikely the article will be kept at this time. FrozenPurpleCube 17:45, 2 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

You need to provide sources as described at Wikipedia:Attribution. Sancho (talk) 17:48, 2 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete for a lack of any sources to back up the claims. The claim has also worked its way in to History of massively multiplayer online role-playing games and probably ought to be excised as well if it cannot be sourced. Arkyan  ^(talk) 19:31, 2 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - but not with any happiness. This is an interesting topic, and probably is notable. However, it still fails WP:ATT. --Haemo 00:43, 3 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Weak Keep I am being an optimist that that sources can be provided. i am sure these games were talked about in the computer magazines of the times--I too remember them. But the eds. who has worked on this article is in a much better position to supply them than I am--surely you kept note of some of them--possibly in paper printout. Please help us keep this article. DGG 05:14, 3 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Understood the points of view. Leave me some time until the week-end, I'll dig my archives then, and see if I can provide valuable evidence. Thanks. Vincent Lextrait 06:45, 4 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been added to the list of CVG deletions. — Kaustuv Chaudhuri (via) 13:56, 3 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - tag it with a source request and move on. Dread Lord CyberSkull ✎☠ 07:25, 6 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was Keep --Bubba hotep 11:47, 8 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Vorstand[edit]

Looks like a dictionary definition to me. Guy (Help!) 15:34, 2 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

It looked like a stub encyclopaedia article, that was in need of fixing in the way that Wikipedia:Wikipedia is not a dictionary#Fixing bad stubs suggests, to me. ☺ Uncle G 21:45, 2 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep with Uncle G's additions to the page. It's now clearly more than a dictdef. –Sommers ^(Talk) 00:30, 3 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Not sure how the version JzG nominated looked like but this version clearly deserves to be kept. Pascal.Tesson 18:54, 6 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. If you have any questions, please contact me at my talk page. Ian Manka 00:37, 8 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Portillo Syndrome[edit]

Protologism, WP:OR. Google hasn't heard of it; no evidence anyone has used this term. Deprodded with explanation on talk page. Weregerbil 15:58, 2 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Strong delete - I never heard the term used in this context even when Portillo was in office. Given he's been out of office for 10 years, and has never seemed particularly nationalistic (his main contribution to public life since leaving office has been making TV documentaries about Spain), I can't see anyone using the phrase. Personally I can't stand the man, but this seems to be a dubious attack page at best, with no sources other than "private conversations". - Iridescenti (talk to me!) 18:06, 2 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per admission at talk of no sources. If in 6 months sources appear, we can recreate the article, of course. Smmurphy^(Talk) 05:33, 3 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
delete per nom. - Aagtbdfoua 13:42, 7 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. - Mailer Diablo 05:08, 7 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Kuvempu University[edit]

This article is poorly written and is completely plagarized. You can find the original article at http://www.kuvempu.ac.in/about.html and elsewhere on that site. Furthermore the notability of this school is in question Vaniac 16:21, 2 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment The author of this article is very stubborn and has deleted db tags twice, even though the tag says that authors may not delete db tags. Furthermore, I reminded him myself and have tried to contact him but he will not respond. Vaniac 16:29, 2 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete as copyvio or completely rewrite - this is a genuine institution, given the number of Indian Wikipedians I assume someone will recreate a legitimate version of this soon enough. - Iridescenti (talk to me!) 18:09, 2 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I am the author of this page as of now. To put it is very simply, this is the institution I have studied in. Me and my friends thought of creating a page of our institution on Wiki. Since, we are still in the process of deciding what has to go in it, the basic material was taken from the University page. But what is said remains a fact, irrespective of how or wherefrom it is presented.

Two more things. This page will enventually be managed by the institution authorities themselves. This will be "Official Wiki" of the Kuvempu University, or that is our fervent hope. Second, this is my first Wiki post and I had lot of problems understanding the codes. They dont seem like HTML. I dont know what is DB mentioned above means.

Give us some time, this will be a fine page.

Comment The "db" mentioned above refers to the fact that the article is a good candidate for speedy deletion due to copyright violations (copyvio). Also, Wikipedia only accepts information from published resources, not first-hand accounts. So in theory, institutional authorities are in no better position to write about this school than anyone else other than the fact that they have better means of obtaining published info. But I guess I'll change my vote to keep, but speedy delete if the copywrite violations are not removed ASAP. If you need any help with coding please let me know. Vaniac 18:04, 3 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy delete as copyvio, but without prejudice to recreate a properly encyclopedic article from scratch. However, any attempt to turn this article into the "Official Wiki" of the institution should be summarily blocked. Wiki software is freely available, and if the institution wants an official Wiki, they can set up their own, rather than trying to hijack part of Wikipedia. See also WP:COI and WP:OWN. Xtifr _tälk 23:17, 3 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was DELETE AND TRANSWIKI to WikiBooks. Herostratus 05:50, 8 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

GUI Design Principles[edit]

Badly wikified, unsourced, possibly original research. - Sikon 14:23, 25 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy delete It reads like spam to me. I put it as db-spam. The Evil Clown _{Please review me!} 14:40, 25 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Not spam (what for?) but plain old WP:OR. Sandstein 15:05, 25 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Deletion is not the answer to the problems with this article. Simple editing is the answer to the problems with this article. It's a very bad article on a subject that has been the subject of books and papers, two of which (although there are many more) are cited in the article. The way to deal with it is to take the books and papers in hand and edit the article. That requires ordinary editors to be bold and use the tools that they posess to write, and does not require either AFD or an administrator to hit any buttons. AFD is not cleanup. Keep. Uncle G 15:17, 25 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Transwiki to Wikibooks. They are right; this is no place for wikipedia, but we definitely need these for wikibooks. George Leung 16:48, 25 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep A good article can be written about this, it is encyclopedic, there are sources. The present one is a start. The first sentence should read There are generally agreed (footnotes) standards.... and then discuss them. DGG 06:03, 26 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Transwiki per George Leung. - Aagtbdfoua 02:53, 2 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
delete as WP:OR. Niffweed17, Destroyer of Chickens 03:53, 2 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Transwiki to Wikibooks. No-brainer. Good article, but not meant for an encyclopedia. utcursch | talk 14:34, 2 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, —bbatsell ¿? ✍ 16:24, 2 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

George has expressed a wise idea. Transwiki per George Leung. WP is not a programming guide repository - but WB is. =^_^= --Dennisthe2 18:56, 2 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete and xwiki If this were properly cited I would vote keep or at least listify. However, in its current state delete and xwiki. TonyTheTiger (talk/cont/bio) 20:09, 2 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- I would stick with the transwiki by itself - once that's done, you can do a {{db-transwiki}} and just be done. --Dennisthe2 23:14, 2 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per DGG, "Further Reading" can be parsed into references. Edivorce 17:19, 3 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was NO CONSENSUS. The debate is divided, and some promise of work is offered. I find the arguments relating to "indiscriminacy" a little too sweeping, after all it would hope to discriminate between those that are and are not 'counter-culture'. I would think also that a poor definition is not a WP:NPOV issue but more a WP:NOR one. Someone might ping W.marsh... -Splash - tk 17:01, 8 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

List of counterculture films[edit]

This article attempts to comprehensively list counterculture films. However the criteria for something being labelled a "counterculture film" is too subjective. There is no industry standard for labelling a film as a counterculture film and the list makes no attempt to even verify that any or all of these films are considered such. Therefore since the list inclusion is based in large part on editorial opinion the list article should be deleted as having POV issues in its list criteria. Note - this should not become a category, either, as it would suffer the same problems as a category. Dugwiki 16:25, 2 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - subjective and indiscriminate list. As the nominator points out, "counterculture" is not a clearly defined term; hence potential issues with WP:NPOV. Also violates WP:ATT due to lack of sources. Walton ^{Vivat Regina!} 16:45, 2 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep but reference with a vengence. Everythingn should be sourced to published film critics saying the film is a counterculture film. No reason to believe that can't be done, so article needs improvement, not deletion. I will take a stab at it when I am on my regular computer tonight which actually has two mouse buttons. How do people do real work on Macs? (that was sarcastic). --W.marsh 17:11, 2 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I'll keep an open mind on your changes, W, but I should mention that I'm skeptical this addresses the problem. The reason is that just as individual editors have their own opinions on when something is "counterculture" so do individual film critics. So simply presenting a single critic who says a film is "counterculture" wouldn't actually verify that it is considered so by the film industry as a whole. Dugwiki 17:46, 2 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Also, keep in mind the other issue that even if you managed to find great references for individual films currently on the list, there is nothing preventing other editors from adding their own films to the list as well. This could be a case where you'll end up with maintainence problems having to continually remove inappropriate or unreferenced entries. Dugwiki 17:48, 2 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Some lists are very difficult to maintain... but not impossible. I realize a lot of people don't want to keep around an article that isn't be properly maintained at the moment, but for me that's not a reason to delete. --W.marsh 18:16, 2 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Just to clarify, the subjective criteria is the main deletion reason. The liklihood of the editors making inappropriate additions just exacerbates the problem. Dugwiki 18:52, 2 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as an indiscriminate list and failing WP:NOT. As stated above the primary inclusion criteria is "countercultural" which is rather subjective, and subjective criteria are pretty much indiscriminate by nature. Arkyan  ^(talk) 19:33, 2 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - this list is impossible to objectively catalog, and fails WP:NOT. Sorry, but you're never going to get a clear definition of what is a "counterculture film" that isn't horrifically broad, or entirely contentious. --Haemo 00:44, 3 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete counter whose culture? NPOV impossibility. Carlossuarez46 17:24, 3 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep and improve. I disagree that NPOV is impossible. It needs some clear-cut criteria, however. — RJH (talk) 17:31, 5 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. If the best argument is that it fails WP:NOT (but no one has yet to explain why it fails WP:NOT) and that counterculture is too difficult to define and thus cannot have a WP:NPOV, then we should absolutely keep the article. Otherwise, we might as well delete the entire counterculture article itself, as obviously it can't keep a neutral point of view as well. If one is too subjective then by proxy its subarticle must be too. If, however, we believe that we should keep the counterculture article for the same reasons why we are deleting this article, then we should rethink our rationale for deleting this article. I'm neutral on the subject as of now, but from the way this discussion is going, I'm leaning towards keep. Rockstar915 04:18, 6 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Rename to List of counterculture films of the 1960s (or something like that), cut down dramatically and "reference with a vengeance" as suggested earlier. While there is no consensus on what counterculture means today, the Counterculture of the 1960s is well-defined. The corresponding group of films is also fairly well defined at least as much as, say, Italian neorealism. Of course, referencing shouldn't be referencing by finding one film buff who says "this was counterculture" but referencing using history of cinema books or similar wide encompassing works that study counterculture of that period. Pascal.Tesson 19:03, 6 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was Speedy deleted. -- Longhair\^talk 05:05, 6 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

JP Money[edit]

Unreferenced page about non-notable musician. Delete--Greatestrowerever 16:29, 2 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - no evidence of multiple non-trivial coverage in independent sources to establish notability per WP:MUSIC. Delete unless sourced by the end of this AfD. Walton ^{Vivat Regina!} 16:44, 2 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Looks like some 'gangsta' school kid to me. Googling throws up nothing relevent. J Milburn 19:33, 2 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete- fails to meet WP:MUSIC Thunderwing 19:59, 2 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete not notable. Acalamari 22:22, 2 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - clearly fails WP:MUSIC --Haemo 00:48, 3 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy Delete re: CSD A7. Rockstar915 05:15, 4 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy A7 Delete No notability, no claim to notabilty outside of said High School. A1octopus 11:56, 4 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete - Zero notability.--NPswimdude500 ^{(Talk|Contribs)} 03:11, 5 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: Why, when so many of you have voted to speedy, has no one tagged it? J Milburn 12:21, 5 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Done. :) Rockstar915 18:43, 5 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as WP:OR that fails WP:BIO and WP:A. ŞůṜīΣĻ¹98¹^Speak_Sign 03:08, 6 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was Delete --Bubba hotep 11:55, 8 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Maximum-Energy Pro Wrestling[edit]

No claim of notability. If there is one please provide it using citations. —— Eagle101 ^{Need help?} 16:33, 2 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Seems to be yet another local wrestling group trying to get some free ad space. Mr.Z-mantalk¢Review! 21:25, 2 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment If someone knowledgeable about this promotion were to revamp and source the article so it passes WP:A then I would vote keep. If that cannot be done then I have to vote delete on grounds of WP:OR. ŞůṜīΣĻ¹98¹^Speak_Sign 00:43, 3 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I have what I would consider a fairly good decent knowledge of the American wrestling indy scene, and I have never heard of this promotion, nor any of its workers. This doesn't seem notable to me, and doesn't have any links to prove nobility, either. Kris Classic 01:22, 4 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

To be fair it is an Australian promotion which rarely get any press in America or Britain. It's gonna take an Australian fan to pimp this article out ŞůṜīΣĻ¹98¹^Speak_Sign 13:17, 4 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. - Mailer Diablo 05:08, 7 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Patrick Arthur O'Keeffe[edit]

Clearly an autobiography, not notable. Format is a mess, the article has a talk page for a reason. Biased. Vaniac 16:52, 2 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Visual arts-related deletions. – Tyrenius 21:42, 3 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete autobio and doesn't pass bar of notability. --Etacar11 17:26, 2 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. Cantras 17:27, 2 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete unless improved but allow the full 5 days for the author to clean it up and assert notability - nominating an article for deletion four minutes after it was created seems a little harsh. - Iridescenti (talk to me!) 18:12, 2 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: AfD is often a better way to get articles to improve than just covering them in cleanup tags, and it means that, if it doesn't improve, it will be gotton rid of. J Milburn 19:30, 2 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per everyone else. Acalamari 22:22, 2 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
AfD is a very effective way of getting to articles to improve, but after cleanup tags have failed to work. It's not the first step. Most of WP articles either have cleanup tags or could well warrant them. Only someone with experience in WP can construct a good article the first shot. If given help, not negative formulaic comments, the article can generally be improved. Then , if the tags are not given any attention, a friendly warning often helps. If a friendly warning doesn't help, then either proposed deletion or AfD is appropriate. But if we wee to Afd all the new articles that needing improvement, we wouldn't have time to work on the articles that really do need discussion. Just as with user warnings, there should be a succession of steps. Frankly, I can think of little that would justify an immediate AfD--if it true junk, then a CSD, if not sure its remediable, then prod. But otherwise, a tag and a chance. And a further comment obn fairness: nobody notified the author!. (I just did) DGG 07:02, 3 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment My last intention was to be harsh, being that I am not a very expierienced user, I figured that AfD could be used as db tags except on articles that might not be such obvious candidates for deletion. Next time I will certainly tag articles with cleanup tags first, and try to clean them up myself. That being said, this is very obviously an autobiography and there is a WP:COI for that reason. Although now that I do see that it was a bit harsh, Wikipedia isn't a place to "get your name out there". I hope you'll agree. Vaniac 07:48, 6 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

"Weak keep if sourced--I think it can be. DGG 06:58, 3 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - vanispamcruftisement. MER-C 05:52, 6 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. - Mailer Diablo 05:09, 7 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hd1080ip[edit]

A COI article created by User:Stewartmilleronline, an account for Stewart Miller, the creator of the HD1080ip format. The only reference given for Miller's work is a web forum posting. Notability not shown. See entry 'Hd1080ip' at the conflict of interest noticeboard. Prodded, but prod was removed by 161.51.11.2 who may be the same as the author. EdJohnston 16:53, 2 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

→ 161.51.11.2 removed prods twice: here and here. — Athænara ✉ 18:35, 3 April 2007 (UTC) [reply]

Delete. If the term ever catches on, somebody else can write about it first. — RevRagnarok ^{Talk Contrib} 17:31, 2 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. He loses any benefit of the doubt by starting the article himself. Jehochman (^Talk/_Contrib) 17:33, 2 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, RevRagnarok said it best. --Iamunknown 17:56, 2 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. — Athænara ✉ 22:21, 2 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Closing admin, please take HD1080 into account as well. REDVERS ↔ SЯEVDEЯ 19:47, 2 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per RevRag. fethers 02:03, 3 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as prodder. MER-C 09:01, 3 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete vanity, self promotion, non notable. Same for Miller's HD1080 article. Nuff said. --Oscarthecat 14:16, 3 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. MSJapan 15:36, 6 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was DELETE and make dab. Will do that. Am I good to you? -Splash - tk 17:08, 8 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Barakovo[edit]

Delete as hoax. See article history:

Barbaric (talk · contribs). creates Barakovo article, claims it was the location of a anti-Albanian massacre during the Kosovo war ([35]). Can't provide sources when challenged to do so.
Mek Maramit (talk · contribs) includes a picture allegedly showing Barakovo, but the image is that of an entirely different location ([36])
Barbaric claims to be from "Barakovo" himself ([37]). But reinstates the false image several times ([38], [39], [40]).
There is no hit for "Barakovo" or anything similar sounding on the US GEONet Names Server ([41]), no non-WP ghits for "Barakovo massacre", and nothing relevant for "Barakovo Kosovo" on google (there is a Barakovo village in neighbouring Macedonia though). Fut.Perf. ☼ 17:06, 2 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: I dunno about this massacre, but I don't want to delete an article about a place that exists. There also seems to be a Barakovo in Bulgaria. Google Maps isn't the best resource for Serbia, and though I have found the nearby city, neither of the names for this village are throwing up anything. I can't literally see anything on the map, either, but it is difficult to interpret. To be honest, I can't zoom in far enough to tell village from rock. Change of plan, I'll go and find a map of Serbia, I'll have one in the house. Ok, I'll post another comment in a few minutes. J Milburn 18:56, 2 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: To continue from my last comment, I can't find it. Surely, a village with a mosque like the one the article is describing would find its way onto a roadmap? (Speaking of the mosque, googling threw up this page, which is a dead link and not archived at the way back machine, but seems to allude to a mosque at a village named Barakovo, but I think it is the Macedonian one.) If anyone can find a source to prove that it exists, then keep. Otherwise, it has to go, on the grounds that it as good as doesn't exist. Have you considered trying to contact some people in an appropriate WikiProject? Presumably, you will be able to find Wikipedians from Serbia, who will have much more detailed maps of that area than me? J Milburn 19:23, 2 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment: we had a newcomer editor on that page today who pointed out the hoax and claimed he had done substantial research on the matter, including contacting local people. He was quite aggressive at first and sounded POV-ish, but he had come to similar results as you and I and his claims now sound quite plausible. Fut.Perf. ☼ 19:30, 2 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  - Commment: Ok, I'll see if I can find an appropriate WikiProject, and bring this debate to their attention. J Milburn 19:35, 2 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    - Comment': Done.
Delete this version but recreate as a disambig. A websearch for this name reveals that there is a Barakovo in Bulgaria, as well as one in Macedonia, as described above, but no evidence for a Barakovo in Serbia. While this particular article may be something of a hoax, the article should be turned into a disambig page to allow for the creation and disambiguation of articles for the real places called Barakovo. Arkyan  ^(talk) 19:38, 2 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment: A disambig would only be appropriate if there were existing articles on the other two. J Milburn 19:43, 2 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  - Comment - they exist now. Either way if we knew of the existence of the other 2 cities, articles notwithstanding, I fail to see how it is inappropriate to have a disambig page to clear that up. Arkyan  ^(talk) 20:19, 2 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    - Comment: Disambiguation pages that do not point to at least two existing articles can be speedily deleted. See Template:Db-disambig. J Milburn 20:32, 2 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Point taken. In any case I did take the liberty to create stub start articles for the other (real) Barakovo articles so we'd have something to disambig to. Arkyan  ^(talk) 20:46, 2 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I have a wikipedian friend who is from Serbia; I will ask Duja to provide comment on this. Jerry 21:09, 2 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Bummer; Duja is on a wikibreak. I will ask another Serbian wikipedian to stop by and comment (User:NeroN BG). Jerry 21:23, 2 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep but re-write - I don't know about this Serbian place and its history since I can't find any information on it, but according to MSN Encarta Maps and Maplandia, there's a Barakov in Macedonia [42] [43]. Sources like the WorldCityDB, Maplandia our own Wikimapia indicate there's another Barakovo in Bulgaria.[44] [45] [46]. The article should be re-written to be about one of those Barakovos, not this perhaps fictional one. --Oakshade 22:57, 2 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment: Oakshade, in the course of this AfD, articles have been written for those two locations, and the current plan is to make a new disambig article at this namespace. J Milburn 23:10, 2 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  - That's what I mean - re-write to a disambig page. --Oakshade 23:23, 2 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep as a disambiguation page. Thank you for creating those stubs, Arkyan. - Regards, Ev 01:17, 3 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete this version. The one on Kosovo is a hoax -- check the Unmik official list of Kosovo settlements. Duja► 06:57, 3 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Disambiguate. Speaking as him what blew the whistle, described as aggressive but not really so, just annoyed about the attitude of another user. I stumbled accross the article some time ago, I even put the Cyrillic name onto it (before opening this account). When I looked at the history, I became curious, and so I consulted a map of Yugoslavia, one of the last of the "old" maps published in the spring of 1991 shortly before the start of the hostilities. The map is large and includes every settlement imaginable including the Croatian town of Hum with its population of less than 30. This supposed village with over a thousand people should have registered with a thick print. The settlement may be new (since 1991) but then it would hardly have this 14th century mosque! Anyhow, on a more pleasant note: I know of the Barakovo's in Bulgaria and Macedonia, they "are" real but there wouldn't be a great deal to write about them as they are both small largely unknown villages, even to them not so far away. But they exist and have a right to a mention: so I'd hold onto the page for that reason. Balkantropolis 07:20, 3 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Disambig It seems that there may be several Barakovos in Russia as well. [47] and GNIS has 6 of them. Carlossuarez46 17:32, 3 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- I have created a Barakovo, Russia article stub, please include it in the disambig page. Carlossuarez46 17:55, 3 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was REDIRECT. Her uneventful release undermines many of the keep votes, as her 15 minutes of fame are over. Right now her only notability is in connection with the incident, and that one article will certainly suffice. If she ever develops independent notability as a result of writing a book or whatever à la Jessica Lynch, we can always revive her article. - NYC JD (interrogatories) 14:54, 5 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Faye Turney[edit]

Delete: Yet another example of people creating an article of something tied to a current event that would otherwise be a very frivolous article,If this article was anymore frivolous, I would have posted it for speedy deletionRodrigue 21:23, 30 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Obviously passes notability. Yes, it may be friviolous, but the news/sources around the person will just grow in time. If nothing else, it will be a fine short article later. Already fine for a stub. - Denny 21:33, 30 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
redirect, notability entirely restricted to seizure story. dab (𒁳) 21:34, 30 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Conditional Keep If she dies or this blows up into a larger conflagration, and we have deleted the page, we will have to recreate it. If she was tortured or abused, we would have to recreate it. Right now she is the centre of the story, lets leave it for now. WayeMason 22:13, 30 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Keep--Sina 22:23, 30 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete I would be for keep, but while she is under control of enemies we should not be producing an area where someone could carelessly give information that could be of use to her captors. Wait till she is safe, and the boys are safe, then have the page. Let's have a bit of sense for our service people.--Uncle Davey (Talk) 23:29, 30 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The only information which should be added to this article is material which is properly referenced. In this case it is almost certainly going to be news stories from credible media organizations. I'm sure that if the Iranians wanted to do a web search they would not just go to the Wikipedia article and ignore the BBC et al. Greenshed 00:32, 31 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Anyone can add anything, and by going through the history anyone can see what was added by someone and then deleted. Some bright spark might give information that does not meet wiki criteria, is immediately deleted, but gives them a stick to beat her and her fellows with. The Iranians might have people on their team who are aware of the power of the net as a means of gaining info and leave no stone unturned, and actually know a thing or two about dredging up info beyond the ubiquitous google search. Let's just be careful about this. --Uncle Davey (Talk) 16:48, 1 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I seriously doubt that the Iranians will use information they find on her Wikipedia article's edit history against her. Following from that logic, we sould have to delete the entire article on the 2007 Iranian seizure of Royal Navy personnel, which would pose the same problem for every single person on the crew. --JianLi 21:06, 2 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete This seems like a simple fairness issue. This person is not currently at liberty to correct mistakes or to complain about errors in the article. Flying Jazz 23:53, 30 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Absolutely not a criterion to delete. By this logic we couldn't have an article on Terry Schiavo or half the people in prison. - Denny 23:55, 30 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

By itself, I agree that not being at liberty is not a criterion to delete. However, in combination with other factors unique to this situation as raised by Uncle Davey, I believe it is a criterion to delete. Flying Jazz 00:21, 31 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Even if this article contains no information that isn't sourced and that isn't widely available in the mainstream, reputable media? Should all media refuse to report on the story until the soldiers are released? I'm not really sure what your point is. Moncrief 01:34, 1 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Strong Keep. This page passes Wikipedia:Notability (people) as Turney has Multiple features in credible news media. Greenshed 00:24, 31 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. She has become very well know around the world due to all the media.--RobNS 02:26, 31 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Weak keep. I don't find any of these special arguments persuasive. However, I question Turney's independent notability. It may, in the long run, be better to merge her with 2007 Iranian seizure of Royal Navy personnel. Bhumiya (said/done) 02:39, 31 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Strong keep. Can someone explain what a comment above: "Yet another example of people creating an article of something tied to a current event that would otherwise be a very frivolous article" even means? Um, yes obviously it would be a "frivolous" article if the current event hadn't happened. Yet it did happen, so therefore it isn't frivolous anymore. To me, that's like saying, "The article on George Washington would be frivolous if he was just a Virginia landowner and had never been elected president of the United States." Yes, and? So? This is an article about someone involved in a very notable current event. People turn to Wikipedia as a resource for information. Keep. And I agree with the concerns above regarding her privacy. Everything in this article needs to be sourced and sourced properly with reliable, public media sources (preferably with the stature of, say, the BBC). There can be no conjecture. Moncrief 03:28, 31 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete and redirect Notability is unlikely to be sustained and really only applies in the context of the ongoing hostage situation.ALR 06:50, 31 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete She has no more involvement in this event than any of the other 14 detainees, none of whom have dedicated articles, and to single this person out is to pander to the, arguable sexist, personality driven prioritites of the press. WP should be above this. Kevin McE 09:38, 31 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

If there is enough information available (from credible sources) on the other captives then I would be in favour of creating articles on them as well. In any case, each article stands or falls on its own merits or demerits; good or bad practice elsewhere in the Wikipedia has no bearing on the question of whether this article should stay. Greenshed 21:16, 31 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The fact that more of the focus is on her than the other hostages is not her fault, but is an undenyable part of the story. Iran have chosen to make her the key figure and so have the media. Whether that is right or wrong, it gives her greater prominance.

Strong keep: it's very interesting, and a highly unusual situation. If it ends up being deleted, the content must be replicated in an article combining all fifteen kidnapped sailors.--Rambutan (talk) 13:47, 31 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Weak keep really all "keep" arguments given above. --TheFEARgod (Ч) 13:50, 31 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Singular incident, singular burqa. Or is it niqab. Whatttever -24.0.111.33 14:43, 31 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment:Um,hello,has everyone forgotten about the other 14 men who were also taken captive,none got a seperate article for themselves,so if we keep this article (which I don't agree on) then isn't it fair that we create one for the others,or even one article for all 15?Rodrigue 14:54, 31 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

CommentUm, hello, feel free to create and write articles for the other 14 if you want to. Just because they don't have articles yet isn't a good excuse to delete this one. Moncrief 01:21, 1 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Ditto. Plus, she seems to currently be the most notable of them all anyway. --JianLi 21:19, 2 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep -- She's become the most prominent public focus of a major diplomatic showdown between the UK and Iran. AnonMoos 16:52, 31 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Seems like a high-profile person, and whatever happens, she will continue to be now. The article seems to be an encyclopedic and well-referenced one. --Guinnog 17:19, 31 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

keep I'll laugh if this is just some excuse for going to war with Iran. But anyways it passes notibility and most likely will gain more fame in time, especially if a war comes out of this.Sam ov the blue sand, X please passover. 17:22, 31 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. She is at the center of a major international incident, and one that could become more major as time goes on.--Danaman5 22:03, 31 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

keep Meet's notability criteria. Period. --Elliskev 00:30, 1 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Passes notability. She's part of the entire conflagaration, and there is a high chance that we'll have more about her in the future. Sephiroth BCR 04:18, 1 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
keep She's been in a released video and thus forms a significant part of the event. swain 14:10, 1 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Does anyone else think the last few above comments seem a bit like sock puppetry,or the same person on multiple accounts,particulary User:Elliskev and User:Sephiroth BCR.I think all thos keeps comments in a row like that are just a bit suspicious,but if not then I guess people just seem very strong about keeping this articleRodrigue 17:49, 1 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. Rodrigue, I would advise you to look for more evidence before you accuse others of sock puppetry. Both Elliskev and Sephiroth BCR are well-established editors and don't appear to edit the same articles generally. Greenshed 19:04, 1 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Ummm. Thanks for the presumption. No sock puppetry going on here. --Elliskev 19:31, 1 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for making accusations with absolutely no basis. And besides, these discussions are not majority votes, merits of arguments are considered. Sephiroth BCR 00:44, 2 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Notable. mceder (u t c) 19:43, 1 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep She is the most recognisable figure in one of the biggest news stories for years and years between two of the world's most prominent nation. There are a great many articles on here about people who are far far far less famous. How many amateur sports stars are on here? How many other people who were in the news for 10 minutes? There is even an article on the detective who led the enquiry into the Ipswich murders last year, who was a far less recognisable figure in a far smaller news story. Faye Turney will dominate the news for the next month. When she comes home she will be recognised everywhere. There is even talk of a movie deal.
Keep for now notable right now, if trends continue this incident will blow up to something bigger. Heck, we have an article on Thomas Delehanty (alas, an unreferenced one), and if he isn't obscure, I don't know what is. If this fizzles out, we can delete it then, but for now it's relevant and cited. --Hojimachong^talk 20:10, 1 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete for now - The woman is only known for one thing currently, and that is only for being seized by the Iranians and writing a few open letters to the British people. Certainly she is the face of this story right now, but I do not think that she is notable enough to be mentioned in this encyclopedia for now. Delete for now. - XX55XX 20:29, 1 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. --Barry O'Brien entretien 20:35, 1 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Strong keep.Doktor Who 21:48, 1 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
redirect to the article of the main incident. Mglovesfun 22:20, 1 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
redirect should redirect to the main article and the most important information kept in the main article of the incident. Will not pass notability after crisis ends and some time later. Poeloq 22:48, 1 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Conditional Keep Albeit it that she does seem to pass notability for now, that's only because she's linked to the incident as a whole. Yes, she is arguably the most recognizable figure of the affair, but that is almost certainly because she is the only woman hostage. If she does something more notable in the affair, I'll support a full Keep, but if the incident blows over without anything signicant directly related to her, then it should probably be delted. Keep for now in case something big happens Hornandsoccer ^Talk 00:59, 2 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to 2007 Iranian seizure of Royal Navy personnel. There is very little information on her specifically even in the article on her; the rest is duplicated from the main article.--Cúchullain ^t/c 01:23, 2 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep -- Regardless of what else happens in this event, she will be one remembered in the future as the only woman and as a result of her television appearances and "confessions". Iwalters
Keep -- She was the leader, the only one who has been used in TV, and she is a SHE. The Hemogoblin

She was not the leader: the most senior of those taken was Captain Chris Air. EamonnPKeane 15:11, 2 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Actually Lt Carman is the senior.ALR 16:52, 2 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Strong keep -- hitman012
Keep - the event makes this person notable and there's no good way to merge this into 2007 Iranian seizure of Royal Navy personnel. --Nick—^Contact/_Contribs 17:07, 2 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Note: The nominator of this AfD did not properly list it using the templates required. I have completed this listing process. --Nick—^Contact/_Contribs 17:07, 2 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect"" - She is not anyone of importance or notability besides being sole woman of the captured sailors. 161.253.40.203 17:25, 2 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Strong keep - yes this may all die down, but how can someone who has been subject of the lead news story worldwide for 10 days in a row not be notable? - Iridescenti (talk to me!) 18:18, 2 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Weak delete -- I'm kinda torn on the issue of deleting this article, because Faye Turney has indeed received a significant proportion of the international press attention of the current hostage crisis. It is conceivable that she could play a pivotal role in the coming days and weeks as the standoff is eventually resolved. But not every person who has ever been in the news deserves a Wikipedia entry, and I think her fame will be short lived. Her actual role in this minor incident is itself minor. So does a minor participant in a minor incident deserve a wikipedia entry? I don't think so, but if her article stayed it would not be a major tragedy. Scottjduffy 18:44, 2 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to the main article 2007 Iranian seizure of Royal Navy personnel since she has no notability outside of being one of many personnel captured in a given incident. Wikipedia is not Wikinews, and if she had been one of 15 captured in one incident in World War 2 or the Korean War there would be not such article about her as an individual. The references are only from March 28 and 29. Wikipedia does not need to create an article for every news item in the world which is in the news for a few days. If there are eventually so many stories about her specifically that the main article becomes unwieldy, then an article can be split off. Edison 19:39, 2 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep for now, suggest revisiting in a year or so. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 19:47, 2 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect per above. The event is notable, not her. Arkyan  ^(talk) 19:49, 2 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep pending merge into main article on event in question. And some of the deletion reasons given are just strange. Sorry, but not only is Wikipedia not likely to contribute any information that would be used against her, that's not a valid grounds for deletion, since Wikipedia is not censored. Anyway, I'm not quite ready to redirect/merge though, since this is a developing story and she could develop more personal notability (though of the capturer sailors, I'd say she is the most notable right now. ). Oh well. FrozenPurpleCube 20:02, 2 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep The subject is verifiable and notable. That is what matters. TheQuandry 20:28, 2 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Strong keep - yes this may all die down, but how can someone who has been subject of the lead news story worldwide for 10 days in a row not be notable? - 159753 21:02, 2 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Do I hear an echo? - iridescenti (talk to me!) 21:22, 2 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - patently rediculous nomination. WilyD 21:50, 2 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Merge with main article. There is no reason to single out this particular individual, and sufficient information is already in the main article. --Dhartung | Talk 23:02, 2 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Weak keep for now. After this all blows over, we'll be able to better determine whether it's worth merging with the main Iranian seizure article. (Think Jessica Lynch: some POWs, especially female ones, become minor celebrities afterwards.) Krimpet (talk/review) 00:04, 3 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep; individual is notable. As Krimpet notes above, after this situation resolves itself, the content here may be eligible to be moved to a larger overall article. --Mhking 01:09, 3 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep she's been in the worldwide news, in all media. If the situation had been immediately resolved, maybe there would be a reason for not including it. By now, she has had the misfortune to become notable in a major international dispute. As she individually appeared in the first video, she's notable even beyond the article on the seizure. People who cant tell a major news story should watch the news more, and not judge only by WP articles. The would be a reason for omitting personal details under BLP, but the public events are indelible. DGG 07:08, 3 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

DGG 07:08, 3 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Disk space is cheap, and this person is notable enough. Perhaps a merger with the main article at a later date, after we see how this pans out, would be reasonable. Bryce 13:08, 3 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Keep and Early Close. The only issue is notability, and the subject clearly satisfies that. We didn't decide to single her out; the media did. Jehochman (^Talk/_Contrib) 13:46, 3 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Strong keep or Merge Naturally, having started it (hello, Rodrigue!), I think this is a valuable article to have. I don't think it ought to be deleted. The subject is notable, there's nothing slanderous or libelous that I can see, and it appears to be from a neutral POV. Maybe instead consider merging it with 2007 Iranian seizure of Royal Navy personnel. --Qinshihuangdi 10:28, 3 April 2007 (EDT)
Delete She has no notability outside of the event that she is currently involved in. Nor is she the major focus of that event. If she had been the only person taken, or was suddenly executed or tortured, it might be different, but as it stands all info about her should stay in the article about the main event. 195.97.248.74 15:37, 3 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. Torture is a red herring. The Geneva Conventions prohibit using prisoners for propaganda or parading them publicly. She certainly has been singled out for special abuse. I don't see a distinction between psychological and physical torture. This whole AfD is a tempest in a teapot, likely motivated by POV pushing. We would do well to shut it down immediately. Jehochman (^Talk/_Contrib) 16:25, 3 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Reply How has she been singled out for special abuse? She was admittedly the first to be shown in the videos, but others then followed. I believe I've read that she has been kept apart from her comrades - but the Wikipedia article doesn't actually state that, nor does it mention that she was compelled to wear a hijab, for that matter. If you are going to argue the psychological torture angle, then those points are surely relevant and should be added. I appreciate your point about the media having singled her out, but if it's a keep, then it's a 'weak keep' or a merge and redirect at best. Assuming this situation is resolved with no further damage to the captured personnel, how will the article on Turney benefit future people reading about the incident? There is nothing in the Turney article that couldn't be transferred into the main article, except for various completely irrelevant points (daughter of a non-notable footballer, married in a non-notable church, etc) Richard of York 17:02, 3 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Merge into, and redirect to, 2007 Iranian seizure of Royal Navy personnel. dcandeto 16:39, 3 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. The standing guidance relating to the deletion of biographical articles is to be found at Wikipedia:Notability (people). As I indicated above, it is an uncontestable fact that the article on Turney easily meets the at least one of the criteria; this is not a borderline case. All those arguing for deletion need to explain why this article is special case for deletion vis-à-vis the guidance. So far no one has done that - because, I suggest, there is no valid argument which stems from the relevent guidance. This discussion does not run along the lines of a simple numerical vote and so those who want to see this article deleted need to develop their argument in light of the clear guidance to the contrary. Greenshed 16:48, 3 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Reply. I accept she is notable Greenshed, but only within the confines of this event, which she is sharing with 14 other servicemen and which already has an article. The media have done a few "brave mum" pieces on her it's true, but all the crew's names have been mentioned in multiple media articles now, so either they should all have an individual entry or none of them should. For me it's looking more and more like a merge. Richard of York 17:02, 3 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. I urge all participants to read the WP:BIO and set moral judgments aside. Also have a look at Jessica Lynch and explain why this is different. Jehochman (^Talk/_Contrib) 17:07, 3 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. That the other servicepeople don't have articles now (and are you sure they all don't? Have you checked?) is an absurd reason to delete this one. It's like saying, when Wikipedia was much younger, that, say, an article about a county in England should be deleted because all the counties didn't yet have articles. Generate articles for the other servicepeople if you like! That they don't have one isn't cause to delete this one. Moncrief 17:58, 3 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

*Comment You misunderstand me Moncrief. I am not saying that her article should be merged because none of the other soldiers have one, merely that under Wikipedia's notability guidelines all 15 would qualify, and yet she's the only one been given her own page. (PS I haven't checked all fifteen names but her name is the only one with a link to it on the main article.) I see it as less like your "counties" argument and more like this article on Big Brother. All the contestants got national coverage for weeks in the media, but only those who went on to have notable careers outside of BB have their own article (which is how she differs from Lynch, who has gone on to become the subject of a film). Nothing to do with moral judgements, and I realise that I am in the minority here, but my personal view is that the article adds absolutely nothing to Wikipedia. Although actually, I have revised my original view - it's not a delete, but a merge. Richard of York 22:35, 3 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Notable individual closely involved in a notable event. --J2thawiki 18:05, 3 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Reply to Richard of York's points. I have considered starting articles for other captives but I am disinclined so to do whilst this article is facing the chop. I see no point in putting in the work on another captive only for it to be deleted as well. Anyway, as Moncrief outlines above, the absence of other articles has no bearing on whether this article should stay or go. My view is that one of the benefits of the notability guidelines is that they let editors know when their verifiable, NPOV, notable, (etc) contributions will be kept/improved. Those arguing for a merge have a better (but not that good) argument than the deletionists. If I thought that this article had no prospect of making it past a stub then I too would favour a merge. However, with a few hours of work it probably could be taken past a stub now and anyway it is a near certainty that further information about Turney will become available. Greenshed 18:53, 3 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - Meets the requirements of Wikipedia:Notability (people) in that there are a wide selection of independent sources available and she has had multiple features in credible news media--Amxitsa 19:05, 3 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Individual has no notability outside of event. I tend to think historically on these things...does every person that was ever a POW or hostage rate an article?--Looper5920 19:47, 3 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Only if they're the primary subject of multiple published works by sources they're unaffiliated with. WilyD 13:46, 4 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete or Merge There is now information on all the other "Detainees". If we don't see a page for each of them, including the officers that appeared on TV, then this should be deleted, or the current section of the Iranian Detainee article should be explained to contain more information on each. If something drastic happens to anyone of these persons, then yes, article. But IMHO its all just related to the incident and not really to one detainee or another. 218.101.11.87 21:28, 3 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
KEEP --Bangabalunga 21:35, 3 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect per above to 2007 Iranian seizure of Royal Navy personnel. Turney is not notable but the event is. --Dariusk 02:47, 4 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Sorry, but I'm a bit puzzled here, of course this person is notable. RFerreira 08:37, 4 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Conditional delete I'm a little suprised of these outright "keeps" that just say "of course she is notable". I'm afraid I would have to disagree with you, at the moment she is not notable, the capture of 15 British troops is notable but she alone is not. However I agree with above points that if something happened in the future which makes her notable then the article ought to be kept. If nothing happens then I don't feel it is notable enough to stay on its own. SGGH 14:14, 4 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Incidentally, I was not aware that she was actually involved in the Iraq War. The article states that she was assigned to Serria Leone and that HMS Cornwall was patrolling to catch smugglers. I may just not have read somewhere where it says otherwise, but from this information alone can we really say she fought in the Iraq War? SGGH 14:14, 4 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Read WP:N and WP:BIO and you'll see that not only is she notable but that this conclusion is inescapable. Anyone who says she's not notable doesn't understand what notability is in the context of Wikipedia. WilyD 15:44, 4 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Excuse me, but I have a very good understanding of what notability is in the context of wikipedia. She is not notable outside of the events. Now that they have been released the article of her alone will most likely not expand more than a few sentences. If a user wants to research the event, then they will look at the article on the event not another article that just looks at the event again from the perspective of one of the sailors. I would appreciate it if you didn't question other user's capabilities just because they don't agree with you. Thanks SGGH 08:12, 5 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  - I'm sorry if that came off as a personal attack - I'll rephrase it as The argument that that she's not notable shows no understanding of the meaning of notability in the context of Wikipedia. I didn't question the capability of anyone - I didn't speculate on why they didn't understand the policy in question, and I won't now. But this is a discussion, and it is important to note when an argument attempts to apply a policy in a grossly inappropriate way. That way, the closing admin can look at the arguments and realise the "keep" argument is Passes WP:BIO, WP:LIVING and WP:V]], while the only argument advanced for deletion is Fails WP:ILIKEIT. WilyD 14:49, 5 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Hey, maybe she'll become the next PM. Sweetnsourbkr 16:34, 4 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, echoing WilyD knowing the British press she'll doubtless experience much greater media exposure following her release. As a reference point for future retrospective researchthis article would be a useful source and certainly superior to other peer encyclopaedia resources Dick G 17:24, 4 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, informative, passes notability. --Caiman 19:26, 4 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, My reason being that I came on to this article to find information about her, and that therefore makes it useful as an encyclopaedic article. Just as the Oxford Dictionary allows new words into the dictionary when it is used enough, this page should be a part of Wikipedia because people use it. Viralmonkey 20:05, 4 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per Caiman Wildyoda 22:33, 4 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - Her involvement in such a significant event makes her notable, as per the primary criteria at Wikipedia:Notability (people), "A person is notable if he or she has been the subject of secondary sources that are reliable, intellectually independent, and independent of the subject". This is most certainly true. She has also been singled out by both the Iranians and the media as being the only women in the group. Adambro 22:37, 4 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect - not notable outside the context of the main article. Any relevant information can be merged into there. -- PageantUpdater • talk | contribs | esperanza 03:21, 5 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Paul Revere isn't notable outside of the American Revolution and yet he has his own article ... I'm sure I could dig up a few other examples. Is there something special about this lady that means she deserves nonstandard treatment? WilyD 11:45, 5 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Keep. User:Rodrigue is crazy. Leading Seaman Turney has now gained worldwide fame because of her kidnapping. Absolutely notable. -- Voldemort 06:15, 5 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- I would say that the 15 sailors have gained worldwide fame because of their kidnapping, and their kidnapping is covered in the article about their kidnapping :) SGGH 08:13, 5 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Merge and redirect to 2007 Iranian seizure of Royal Navy personnel. This was an unnecessary nomination, since these things eventually sort themselves out after the media attention goes away; see WP:RECENT. —Kevin 06:40, 5 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as per nomination. Captain scarlet (talk · contribs) 10:53, 5 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep she has been a big focus of this whole rigmarole. She's been the "face" of it all.... OR... redirect but make her importance clear in the overall article. --GracieLizzie 14:23, 5 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Merge and Redirect - OK, passes notability. But 80% of the present article carries the same information as 2007 Iranian seizure of Royal Navy personnel - of course she traveled back with the other personnel! I agree that there is a need to highlight her role in the main article. Rgds, - Trident13 14:35, 5 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was speedy delete, absolutely no content. - Bobet 10:12, 3 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Serie A 2007-08[edit]

Biggest crystal ball possible. We don't know when it starts, and we don't even know yet which teams are going to play it. Angelo 17:23, 2 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, if only for the 2006-07 Serie A logo. - Dudesleeper · Talk 17:31, 2 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, and I reckon it could pass as a Speedy delete for being empty. J Milburn 18:39, 2 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, no relevant information. Punkmorten 18:47, 2 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete per everyone else. Acalamari 22:20, 2 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy Delete A3 (nocontent). So tagged. --Dennisthe2 23:12, 2 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete' empty and as said above crystal balls needed. Tangerines 02:45, 3 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was Delete --Bubba hotep 11:58, 8 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Henry The III[edit]

Notability concerns: can't find evidence of the NCAAP award, and his role in "Shredderman Rules" appears to be minor. Strangerer (Talk) 17:29, 2 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Henry the Third I know it's a different person, but I think this redirect is okay. 142.58.101.27 19:24, 2 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Support redirect if deleted. No stance on actual deletion. -- saberwyn 22:26, 2 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
comment I do not see how it helps to make a redirect from one person to a different person. DGG 07:09, 3 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- It's often done in cases where a non-notable person shares a name or nickname with a more notable one, see example at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/The Slayer where a similar question was asked. Xtifr _tälk 23:30, 3 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete famous [not] TV commercial actor. Do not redirect, as this is not even a plausible typo. Ohconfucius 10:14, 3 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete no redirect, not plausible typo. Carlossuarez46 17:58, 3 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete.--Wizardman 03:29, 8 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Pramit Malhotra[edit]

I think this subject fails WP:BIO. Being interviewed is generally not a claim of notability. The other claim of notability is that of "starting the first plastic surgery boutique in Michigan"; what's a plastic surgery boutique exactly? Is that the same of a plastic surgery clinic? Tizio 17:38, 2 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Weak Delete He was interviewed for 2 small papers and had a letter to the editor published. Not quite notable. Mr.Z-mantalk¢Review! 21:22, 2 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Being interviewed isn't the same as being the subject of non-trivial articles. - Aagtbdfoua 00:42, 8 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was Delete - copyvios should be blanked, edited, or flagged for deletion immediately. There is no assertion that the copyright on the page Founder and President is compatible with our GNU license. Bubba hotep 12:04, 8 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Samuel Doctorian[edit]

Article doesn't really establish notability, but it seems marginal for a speedy deletion. Can't find decent non-autobiographical sources to verify most of the information in the page. Author has left Wikipedia and so is unreachable for debate. Zimbardo Cookie Experiment 18:10, 2 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Weak Keep I would reduce this to a stub to avoid a copyright violation of his bio at biblelandmission.org (which is what this text basically is). He actually appears moderately notable - he has given talks all over the world (you can see that on various websites) and appears to be sort of a homegrown missionary/evangelical/Nostradamus. The problem is finding any independent sources on him - going to be tough. Brianyoumans 21:07, 2 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Weak keep worth stubbifying and rewriting, if independent sources ca be found .There should be articles in the appropriate specialized magazines.

Trial balloon given the way wp people cant get to libraries or avoid them, material which may take library work should have a loger than 5 day period--perhaps 2 weeks if a general college library will do, perhaps 2 months in cases like this. DGG 07:13, 3 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I just got a chance to do a Lexis-Nexis news search; there are a few references in the Times-Picayune, but mostly as announcements. I'm going to do a magazine search later on this week. Should probably have done a more complete job before nominating the article. Zimbardo Cookie Experiment 07:31, 3 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Religion-related deletions. -- ⇒ bsnowball 10:23, 3 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. --Core desat 05:09, 7 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

East & West Magazine Vietnam[edit]

New Vietnamese magazine that has not necessarily proved its notability yet, certainly not in its first month. Page is basically ad copy Daniel Case 18:17, 2 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete New magazine that has not yet established notability. And what's with all the random categories on the page, makes it look like it was intended to be an ad. Mr.Z-mantalk¢Review! 21:19, 2 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep This page is informative for Vietnam indeed. Nothing to do with avertisement. But in Vietnam where the market for English magazines is so young one needs to communicate. Furthermore please be advised that this publication is high quality. Also please note that there is noe e-commerce reference whatosever. From the point of informing about progresses in the latest WTO member country, it is very important to note how much Vietnam has progressed and modernized in the media field. This is why this article should remain, thank you for your consideration changing your opinion. PN --Swissair 03:36, 3 April 2007 (UTC)— Swissair (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]

Nothing to do with avertisement. But in Vietnam where the market for English magazines is so young one needs to communicate. In other words, it's an advertisement.
Furthermore please be advised that this publication is high quality. And this means what, exactly, regarding our standards of the magazine's notability?
From the point of informing about progresses in the latest WTO member country, it is very important to note how much Vietnam has progressed and modernized in the media field.. And that's why we have Media of Vietnam.
This is why this article should remain ..... All that matters here is this. And I don't see it, not with a brand new magazine. Daniel Case 05:37, 3 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy delete as spam per CSD G11, calling a spade a spade ;-) Ohconfucius 10:17, 3 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as spam. Calliopejen 19:36, 3 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was Speedy delete by Nick (CSD-G1 : Something made up in school one day). ◄Zahakiel ► 04:28, 4 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Stwalk[edit]

Non-notable neologism; Wikipedia is not for things made up in school one day. Contested prod. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 18:38, 2 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, as something whose sole assertion to notability is that it has "spred [sic] around the nation". We aren't Urban Dictionary. --Dennisthe2 19:45, 2 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Complete bollocks. Wikipedia is not for things made up in school one day. Leebo ^T/C 19:58, 2 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy Delete - Non-notable neologism, and we need a formal speedy deletion category for phrases (like bands and individuals) that do not legitimately assert notability; I don't see 5 days being necessary to discuss the merits of entries such as that. ◄Zahakiel► 21:05, 2 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- For that, you might want to take it to the talk page on WP:CSD. No offense, it's just that this isn't the place to discuss policy issues. --Dennisthe2 21:57, 2 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I am aware of that. I am merely pointing it out, not going into any detailed discussion. I am considering bringing it up there. ◄Zahakiel ► 22:06, 2 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy Delete; violates WP:NOT --Mhking 01:06, 3 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy Delete. Textook example of madeupinschooloneday. Fits in Speedy G1, nonsense DGG 07:16, 3 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was REDIRECT to Billy Meier, it appears we're not deleting but the ... non-existence ... problem is very, uh ... real. -Splash - tk 17:20, 8 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Semjase[edit]

This article is about a Plejaran allegedly in contact with Billy Meier. Since this alien speaks only to Meier, any discussion about her is best kept on Meier's page. The, er, character does not seem otherwise notable enough for her own entry on Wikipedia (especially not such a remarkably credulous report on her remarkable life). Sorry for marking this "biography", but what else is it? Phiwum 18:41, 2 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Merge into Billy Meier to the extent there's anything salvageable in the article. The Meier article could use some NPOV-touchup, also. -- THF 18:51, 2 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment NB that my merge suggestion reflects the assumption that there is something Wikipedia-worthy in the article, which is currently devoid of reliable sources. It may well not merit more than a sentence or two in the Meier article, which itself needs pruning. I don't see WP:SIZE as an objection, since the sum total of what is notable about Meier should surely fit within Wikipedia length. -- THF 18:53, 3 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Merge - merge into Billy Meier, given that the topic of Semjase seems to relate directly to Meier's experiences. There are other Pleiadeans to, so we can start a pattern by placing Semjase's article into Meier's profile so we can help prevent future Pleiadeans who have claimed to have visited Meier from having their own separate article (in other words, they follow along with the Semjase's article and merge into the Meier profile where most of the contact data links to) (:O) -Nima Baghaei ^{talk · contributions} 20:30, 2 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Good idea - the last thing we need is a plethora of Pleiadeans. Seriously though, given that one (arguably notable) fantasist is the subject of an article it makes sense to merge individual elements of his fantasy into the main article as short sections. Non-judgemental but also not giving undue credence to unsupported claims. andy 21:48, 3 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. I think I was washing my hair on the day that WP decided to support unreferenced fantasies. Show me a single external reference that does not ultimately originate from Billy Meier and I'll support this article, otherwise... d'uh! andy 22:17, 2 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Articles about fictional characters are an acknowledged and accepted part of Wikipedia. Merging into Billy Meier would make that already rather long article even longer. WP:SIZE|WP:PAPER — Graf Bobby 09:54, 3 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

But surely not articles about non-notable fictional characters who only exist in the imagination of one person? On that basis any kid's imaginary friend would be acceptable. Where are the references?

This character is not a notable fictional character in the same way that Frodo Baggins is - a character who has assumed independent existence through the imagination of readers or participants. "She" is in fact a non-notable non-existent person whose real existence is claimed by one person only and without any means of independent verification. andy 10:32, 3 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Well, of course a lot more people read Tolkien than Billy Meier's stuff. But of those that do, a significant number probably believes that Semjase is real. That alone makes her somehow notable. Of course the article shouldn't treat it as a fact, as it does now. — Graf Bobby 11:35, 3 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry to be awkward but Tolkien doesn't claim that Frodo is real, and no-one (I hope!) thinks he is. It just requires a willing suspension of disbelief and that is what makes him a fictional character. But if Meier says that this character is real that statement is either true or false - if false then she's a non-existent person and should only be the subject of a separate article if she's notable. Although if it's all true... andy 12:10, 3 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Actually that was the point I was trying to make. Nobody believes that Frodo is real, but some people believe that Semjase is real. And that kinda makes Semjase more notable than Frodo, just as I consider Phlogiston more notable than Mithril. (Of course, it wasn't just a couple of cranks that believed in the Phlogiston stuff.) — Graf Bobby 12:50, 3 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

As nominator, perhaps I didn't make my case clear. I don't mean Semjase should be deleted just because there is no proof she exists or just because she speaks to only one person. After all, a lot of significant religious figures speak to a very small number of persons. But their significance comes from the widespread influence of the religion and the many believers in these otherwise unverifiable characters. Meier has considerably less influence and the character of Semjase is known to a very small minority of not particularly influential people. In plain terms, it's not her non-existence that concerns me. It is her lack of notability. (Of course, we can disagree on whether she is notable enough.) Phiwum 13:10, 3 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

On that point, it's interesting and possibly indicative that no believer has protested about the notice. I can't imagine that the hobbit fraternity would be silent if Frodo was up for deletion! andy 14:48, 3 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Probably none of the believers have noticed the AFD yet. Phiwum 15:14, 3 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

so ryu from street fighter and goku from dragon ball z should have their articles deleted b/c they do not exist and are considered fictional characters? no, this article should be kept or merged (:O) -Nima Baghaei ^{talk · cont} 15:09, 3 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think anyone has suggested removing Semjase on the grounds that she does not exist. Merging the data into Billy Meier is acceptable to me, so long as (1) most of this overly long biography is omitted for reasons of space and (2) it is re-written in a more neutral tone. If, on the other hand, Semjase is really notable enough for her own page (which I doubt), then (2) is sufficient. Phiwum 15:14, 3 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I was about to agree with you and say merge but then I re-read the policy on notability at Wikipedia:Notability#Deletion:"A topic can fail to satisfy the criteria because there are insufficient published works from reliable sources that are independent of the subject. Without such sources, a proper encyclopedia article cannot be built at all. Such articles are usually nominated for deletion..." - which is pretty clear. There are as far as I understand it no independent sources because there is only one source of information. andy 15:37, 3 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete per consensus of established editors. --Core desat 05:10, 7 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Gurudeva Vagish Shastri[edit]

If you came here because someone asked you to, or you read a message on another website, please note that this is not a majority vote, but instead a discussion among Wikipedia contributors. Wikipedia has policies and guidelines regarding the encyclopedia's content, and consensus (agreement) is gauged based on the merits of the arguments, not by counting votes.

However, you are invited to participate and your opinion is welcome. Remember to assume good faith on the part of others and to sign your posts on this page by adding ~~~~ at the end.

Note: Comments may be tagged as follows: suspected single-purpose accounts: {{subst:spa|username}}; suspected canvassed users: {{subst:canvassed|username}}; accounts blocked for sockpuppetry: {{subst:csm|username}} or {{subst:csp|username}}.

Was nominated for speedy deletion under CSD-A7, but declined as contains an assertion if notability of you look very carefully - that the guy created a yoga technique. There is no assertion of notability for the yoga technique that I can see, so I'd like community input on the entire article. Originally created at Vagyoga, moved to title claimed by article intro. My opinion is reserved. REDVERS ↔ SЯEVDEЯ 19:53, 2 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as the article is sourced only by self-published material as far as I can see. Claim of notability is not supported by any clear evidence. Also, I just looked at the status of the references and not only are they improperly formatted, it is not clear how some of them support the claims. Sarlo's Guru Rating Service doesn't look like a WP:RS to me. The Guru Rating Service fowarded me to an angelfire site selling workshops. I read the article trying to figure out what the actual novel claims were regarding "Vagyoga" and honestly could not figure out which sentences related to this particular method and what sentences were generic statements regarding yoga, etc. Since some of the statements are very general and could apply to many yoga topics, some of the references appear to be irrelevant to the specific issue of Vagyoga and Vagish Shastri (the honorific "Gurudeva" means "Divine Teacher"). The picture on the page of the Devanagari sound system looks pretty much like every other such chart I've seen, and the generic comments about Kundalini, etc. are not noteworthy. A Google search for "Gurudeva Vagish Shastri" gets only nine hits, not very impressive for even the most obscure guru. Since the claim is that there is a significant new method for teaching Sanskrit, I searched Amazon to try to find the books to perhaps add to my collection of such things, and while it is out of print I did find Pop Star Madonna's Master Dr. Vagish Shastri's Vagyoga ; Mnemonic Sanskrit, suggesting that the truly notable claim here may be an assertion that Madonna endorses this method of Sanskrit instruction. Buddhipriya 02:25, 3 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Article seems more to laud skill than provide insight into its scientific nature and merits. Seems like an advertisement the way it is written. Seems to only mention positives. ZaydHammoudeh 07:18, 3 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment The page was created for Vagyoga. Firstly this page is not for Gurudeva Vagish Shastri. But it concentrates on his invented technique.
Vagyoga is a newly emerged technique of Sanskrit grammer which has its applications in Yoga and Kundalini Meditation. Its follower belong to all over the world. So why this new technique br ignored ? --Vagyoga 06:44, 3 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Note that I have refactored this page for readability. Note also that the article has been moved to Vagyoga but that the author has nominated it for deletion here REDVERS ↔ SЯEVDEЯ 07:55, 3 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletions. -- ⇒ bsnowball 10:20, 3 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
He is a great teacher, with very heavy weight academic credentials. He is the former head of the Sanskrit dept. at Sanskrit University in Varanasi. I think this material is valid. Pam Strayer — Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.102.195.245 (talk • contribs)
Delete as above. Anwar 14:00, 4 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep To my point of view this page has relevant information. Therefore it should be retained here. Chaman Lal--59.95.107.85 03:20, 6 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Relevant information is not a criteria for inclusion. See WP:USEFUL and WP:ILIKEIT. 202.54.176.11 10:55, 6 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment It is clear that some form of either sock- or meat-puppets are at work here, which suggests bad faith on the part of the proponent of the article. Look at contribution histories: [48] [49] Buddhipriya 06:33, 6 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Strong delete - blatant advertising and probable COI at work here! --Orange Mike 13:39, 6 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Article could be cleaned up, but it should not be deleted. It may have been created by a practitioner or vendor of this technique, but it does have very interesting information about a subject that I personally know very little about. It's got references, links, sources, and everything else an article needs. --Darth Borehd 01:26, 7 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Spam, and no potential to become otherwise. —Cryptic 01:31, 7 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was Delete --Bubba hotep 12:10, 8 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Ilan kwittken[edit]

For fear that co-hosting an event with the talking corpse formerly known as Joan Rivers is a claim to notability, I bring forth this article via WP:COI/N. Other than that unverified claim, there's nothing to recommend this article as it stands. REDVERS ↔ SЯEVDEЯ 20:07, 2 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

comment' Claims to have been in Sopranos, but doesn't say i what (probably trivial) role.DGG 07:19, 3 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
speedy. Renata 02:48, 7 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. He does have an [imdb.com entry with one credit, as a regular (but not featured) on The Apollo Comedy Hour. Not enough. Herostratus 06:25, 8 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was DELETE. -Splash - tk 17:22, 8 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Linda Corby[edit]

Does not assert notability. I came across the page because of the insertion of links to places like the author's store. There is only one substantial editor, and as a result the page may simply need cleaning up and removal of the parts that are basically adverts. (provided that the author is indeed notable) —— Eagle101 ^{Need help?} 20:13, 2 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as NN. I can only go so far... that same editor is also "cleaning" (I use the term loosely) Cathy Jourdan which has been {{prod}}'d as spam from the publisher (Factfinder52 (talk · contribs · logs) previously Rcbookpublishing (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)). — RevRagnarok ^{Talk Contrib} 22:27, 2 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment - possible conflict of interest, as article creator and major contributor, User:Tarbra, seems to be the subject of the article (or at the least, has Ms. Corby's bio on his/her userpage). — ERcheck (talk) 00:05, 3 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment - Alterations/edits have now been made to this page and hopefully this page will conform to the rules. Thank you all for your comments and help. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Tarbra (talk • contribs) 07:45, 3 April 2007 (UTC).[reply]
  - Comment - Tarba (talk · contribs), do you have any affiliation with the subject? — RevRagnarok ^{Talk Contrib} 11:17, 3 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment - possible conflict of interest, as article creator and major contributor, User:Tarbra, has been adding unsource violations of WP:BLP to Dick Francis and has included the same info on the Linda Corby page. --PTR 15:37, 3 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep There is a conflict of interest but this does NOT mean that the article is notable or not. Cocoaguy ここがいい _contribs^talk 22:18, 3 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete unless the page improves. I agree with cocoaguy, a conflict of interest has no baring in this AFD. Arbustoo 00:21, 4 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was DELETE. There is a valid debate over the claim of notability, but clearly none of the deleters are persuaded of the case at the conclusion of the discussion. Lakes' final comment is especially telling. -Splash - tk 17:41, 8 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Nikita Allanov[edit]

Person does not meet notability requirements ↪Lakes (Talk) 20:26, 2 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete No non-trivial reliable independent sources, fails WP:BIO. One Night In Hackney₃₀₃ 20:44, 2 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per the above reasons. Acalamari 22:18, 2 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Allanov is a top star on the independent circuit (most notably in the National Wrestling Alliance where he has one several regional titles) and has been listed in Pro Wrestling Illustrated's "PWI 500" between 2001-2005 as specified on the article prior to nomination. Among his opponents include UFC champion Dan Severn, himself a former NWA World Heavyweight Champion [50], defeating in a BDW Heavyweight title defence on May 26, 2006. [51] MadMax 01:09, 3 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment He's definitely not a top star in the indy circuit, and being listed in the PWI 500 below top 100 is not notable since the list is based on wrestlers submitting their information, and is not checked. Having wrestled Dan Severn is not notable either. Winning a championship in a non-notable indy company doesn't make him notable. ↪Lakes (Talk) 19:21, 3 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Regardess of how credible you believe the PWI 500 to be, Allanov has appeared in a major publication stating he is a top star on the independent circuit (and westlers above 250 are primarily WWE, TNA and international stars). The National Wrestilng Alliance, an organization in which he has won several major titles, is arguably the top independent wrestling promotion in the United States. A defeat over a major professional wrestler, a wrestler whose held the NWA Heavyweight title, is notable. Additionaly the WCW and TNA Heavyweight titles are offshoots of the NWA World Heavyweight title which was formerly recognised by at least one major publication (both prior and during Severn's reign) as a world title. MadMax 18:28, 4 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment For non-fans participating in the AFD I'll note that the National Wrestling Alliance is a group of small regional promotions in the USA and not to be confused with TNA Wrestling despite TNA holding the main NWA titles. Also that the defeat of Dan Severn was a worked pro-wrestling match, not an MMA match for which he is famous. ŞůṜīΣĻ¹98¹^Speak_Sign 01:33, 3 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. He's wrestled in at least eight US states, and appeared on a Japanese pay-per-view, which elevates him above the average non-notable indepdent circuit wrestler. [52] He has also been featured in several DVD releases. [53], [54] McPhail 19:45, 3 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment He didn't wrestle on PPV, he appeared on the "Hashimoto in America Special" which aired on 23rd January 2002 on Samurai TV and was not PPV. Appearing on a DVD or two does not make someone notable per Wiki guidelines, otherwise we'd have articles on practically every actor there is which we don't. The primary notability criterion is A person is notable if he or she has been the subject of secondary sources that are reliable, intellectually independent, and independent of the subject which at present he fails. I don't consider him meeting any of the Special Cases listed, and even if he did that still needs there to be a good deal of verifiable information available about them, which there isn't. One Night In Hackney₃₀₃ 19:54, 3 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

He's appeared on at least half a dozen DVDs released by a variety of publishers, not "a DVD or two". He was also the subject of an article by the Piitsburgh Tribunal Review. McPhail 20:13, 3 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Are these DVDs available from major retailers, or are they distributed by and large by the promotion who produced them or from wrestling retailers like Highspots? Also he wasn't "the subject" of the article at all, it's trivial coverage of him at best. One Night In Hackney₃₀₃ 21:16, 3 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Pro Wrestling Illustrated is a major publication in the United States of which Allanov has been the subject of and consitutes as a secondary sources that is reliable, intellectually independent, and independent of the subject. PWI is mentioned in wrestlers biographies throughout Wikipedia, specifically PWI Years. MadMax 18:32, 4 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

As stated above, his PWI coverage was based on him sending his own information in, which isn't subsequently checked and thus is not a reliable source. One Night In Hackney₃₀₃ 19:18, 4 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

While the editors encourage submissions from the numerous indepedendent promotions operating both in the United States and internationally, PWI clearly states By ranking a wrestler in a position above another wrestler, we are not saying that the higher-ranked wrestler is nessessarily better or that he would beat the lower-ranked wrestler. Among the points taken into account are the wrestler's pound-for-pound abilities and how active he was for the year. ("PWI 500." Pro Wrestling Illustrated Dec. 1998. [pg. 39])

There is nothing to suggest that PWI does not check its entries nor that it is an unreliable source. There is no proof that wrestlers are included simply by information sent by wrestlers or promoters and that the rankings themselves are based on the editors opinions themselves. The point is that a major US publication states that Allanov is a top wrestler in North America and has been listed as such on three other occasions. MadMax 00:34, 5 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Even if those ranks were really valid, being number 362 in 2005 wouldn't make him notable. ↪Lakes (Talk) 16:46, 5 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

So you've clearly admitted PWI is written in a kayfabe style, and yet somehow it's still a reliable source? Are you aware that for many years the interviews published in the magazine were completely made up, and possibly still are? I suggest you also look at the PWI FAQ page, which shows its lack of editorial policy. Also none of the information currently in the article is attributed to PWI in the first place. One Night In Hackney₃₀₃ 16:56, 5 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

First if the rankings need to cited then a reference tag is nessessary not nominating an article for deletion. Second, an interview isn't being cited here. Nowhere in their guidelines in the PWI 500 mentioned. Your opinion is that the magazine simply prints whatever information they get from independent wrestlers, the editors say otherwise. I'm not going to debate the merits of PWI, however I do believe it's extremely shortsighted to disregard its publication as unreliable. The PWI almanac for example is considered an extremly valuble resource. Similarly almost every major wrestler has an award or ranking using the PWI 500 or Years, should these be removed as well ? Your completely overlooking the fact that a major publication printed such a wrestler as a top competitor in the independent circuit. How is this any different from the Wrestling Observer or any other wrestling newsletter ? MadMax 02:55, 6 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I would say that the very fact PWI is written in a kayfabe style indicates that wrestlers don't appear on the PWI 500 through having excellent matches, they appear on it due to visibility, title "wins" and higher profile matches, i.e. notability (though there was the time they went crazy in 1997 and gave the Number 1 wrestler award to Dean Malenko). ŞůṜīΣĻ¹98¹^Speak_Sign 03:03, 6 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Where is it stated that he's a top competitor in the independent circuit? You so far haven't provided any indication that that is true. ↪Lakes (Talk) 11:57, 6 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete I don't think he meets any of the general criteria of WP:BIO and am unconvinced by his level of contribution to the wrestling scene. ŞůṜīΣĻ¹98¹^Speak 14:35, 8 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. As Butseriously states, verifiability is not the sole criterion for the inclusion of an article. Being included on a list, however reliable it may be, is not a sufficient assertion of notability. yandman 13:28, 4 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Accreditation Governing Commission of the United States of America[edit]

Fails WP:CORP. Unnotable company. This group is not a authoritized United States accreditor, and thus its accreditation is meaningless.[55] That means this is a company. Unnotable, undescriptive, no claims of notability, etc. The website is registered to "John Doe" and has no phone number, email address, or mail address. How can you have an article without sources? Arbustoo 23:59, 29 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment' If so, and this is referrred to, we have all the more reason to source and keep the article. DGG 04:58, 30 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. What do you mean if? The link I supplied above[56] shows this is not a legimate accreditor. Thus, it is an accreditation mill. An article about an accreditation mill is worthless if the article just says what its not and lacks WP:RS telling what it is. It already appears on List of unrecognized accreditation associations of higher learning, and that's good enough. Delete as NN. Arbustoo 14:12, 30 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - I believe this company is notable within its category; the article is a stub and needs to be added to, not deleted. --Orange Mike 16:23, 30 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment What are you sources for proving it is "notable within its category"? I disagree that it appears notable, hence the afd. Please offer to proof to assert this. Arbustoo 21:37, 31 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Schools-related deletions. -- Noroton 15:42, 30 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Not a single source and nothing that points to notability. Pax:Vobiscum 19:55, 30 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep The Sources have been there from the very first, though not visible unless the article was looked at carefully--which I did not do last night. I have just reformatted them for increased visibility, and there should be no more question. Expansion wouldn't hurt, but that's an editing question. it should be obvious that a notable purported accreditor is as worthy of an article as a real one--and the article serves a real purpose, for it can now be linked to if some diploma milll or the like should list it as a source.DGG 22:39, 30 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment: How do you expand it when there are no sources for it? The website is registered to "John Doe" and there is no names, addresses or phone numbers. Is this a scam? Is it real? The "sources" are simply two lists that say its no a recognized accreditor. According to WP:CORP, we should have multiple non-trival sources. Feel free to find and add the sources. Until then it is clearly not notable. Its claims and mention on two lists does not mean it is wikiworthy. Arbustoo 01:11, 31 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - I share Arbustoo's view that this organization is an accreditation mill. I created the article to provide documentation of the claims made by this outfit and the evidence for listing it as an "unrecognized accreditation association of higher learning." Several diploma mills claim authenticity based on accreditation by them (for example, see this page), so an article about their status could be helpful to people who might otherwise be taken in by a diploma mill. Additionally, I do not trust List of unrecognized accreditation associations of higher learning, because I have found some legitimate organizations listed there with red links (for example, American Council on Education was listed there). In my opinion, it would be an improvement if every red link on the list were replaced by an article. Minor issue: I'm dismayed that several other contributors failed to notice the references in the article I created (they were displayed in the text in the format "[1][2]") -- many Wikipedia articles use this format to display URL references, and I thought this was an acceptable (albeit minimalistic) method of listing sources.--orlady 00:54, 31 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment it being put on list does not mean 1) it notable or 2) we have enough sources for a balanced article. Those two reasons must be considered when explaining vote or keep. WP:CORP says a notable article is multiple non trival sources about the subject. Arbustoo 01:11, 31 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment I did notice the links you provided but, like Arbustoo pointed out, they cannot be considered "non-trivial sources". What we need is articles or books written about the subject. Pax:Vobiscum 08:16, 31 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  - Comment Major diploma mills that currently claim this entity as the source of their authority to grant degrees include Capitol University and University of NorthWest. Some diploma mills that formerly claimed accreditation by this outfit now say that accreditation is irrelevant (for example, see University of Northern Washington).--orlady 14:11, 31 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    - Comment But that doesn't matter unless there are sources, and the current references are just mentions of the name. I'm not trying to say that the organization doesn't exist, I'm saying that if there are no non-trivial sources of information (such as books, articles about the organization), the article must be deleted per official policy. Pax:Vobiscum 14:59, 31 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
      - Comment Orlady, 1) we need RS sources for write an article. 2) Those "major diploma mills" don't even have wikipedia articles. This article can be recreated when there is enough to write about. Until then it fails to do any parties favors. There is a solid record of removing unnotable unaccredited places.[57] Please provide non-trival WP:RS or reconsider changing your vote. Arbustoo 17:03, 31 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment further research shows "Accreditation Governing Commission of the United States of America" is not a registered business nor is a registered non profit. A search through the Chroncile of Higher Education and various news searches shows nothing. This is an unotable website. Fails WP:CORP and WP:WEB. Arbustoo 21:50, 31 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment a domain check shows its website is registered to "Doe John" in ORLANDO, FL. Hardly anything we want to keep on wikipedia. Arbustoo 21:52, 31 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:CORP, which states that "Trivial or incidental coverage of a subject by secondary sources is not sufficient to establish notability." If there were newspaper articles or govermental reports or court cases that actually discussed the subject, it might qualify, but the article does not pass WP:ATT at the moment. --Butseriouslyfolks 06:06, 1 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted for more opinions. Arbustoo 20:29, 2 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Sourced There are two excellent official government sources from different states, and that is enough. DGG 07:26, 3 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- WP:CORP states "Trivial or incidental coverage of a subject by secondary sources is not sufficient to establish notability." It belong on two lists is trival. Arbustoo 23:37, 3 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  - Thats not a very good interpretation of the guideline. The government entities are authoritative and reliable sources on the matter of accreditation, and inclusion on this list is considered to be an official ruling. These lists (and these lists alone), are used by other institutions to determine the validity of credits - that alone makes these reliable sources. The WP:CORP guideline was intended to prevent using directory like listings of companies as reliables sources. Thats obviously not the case here - Keep for passing WP:V and WP:ORG as a diploma mill. - CosmicPenguin (Talk) 01:52, 4 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    - Comment Just because it's true does not mean it belongs in Wikipedia. Inclusion on a list is trivial coverage. There's no notability here. --Butseriouslyfolks 06:12, 4 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete and protect from recreation. I forgot to close this AfD when I deleted the article. --Core desat 07:56, 7 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Miltos Manetas[edit]

Non notable visual artist. Bus stop 20:30, 2 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

If you came here because someone asked you to, or you read a message on another website, please note that this is not a majority vote, but instead a discussion among Wikipedia contributors. Wikipedia has policies and guidelines regarding the encyclopedia's content, and consensus (agreement) is gauged based on the merits of the arguments, not by counting votes.

However, you are invited to participate and your opinion is welcome. Remember to assume good faith on the part of others and to sign your posts on this page by adding ~~~~ at the end.

Note: Comments may be tagged as follows: suspected single-purpose accounts: {{subst:spa|username}}; suspected canvassed users: {{subst:canvassed|username}}; accounts blocked for sockpuppetry: {{subst:csm|username}} or {{subst:csp|username}}.

keep: A significant contemporary artist who has exhibited in major spaces, appears in major art magazines. Marbruk 21:17, 2 April 2007 (UTC) — marbruk (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]

Delete: There are no sources in the article except for a personal web site. Bus stop 21:40, 2 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

NOT TRUE Marbruk 10:00, 4 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete the "artist" who brought us the NEEN article and its variant spellings. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 00:36, 4 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

NOT AN ARGUMENT Marbruk 10:00, 4 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

keep: Just Google Miltos Manetas and you will find articles about him from the NYTimes to the Interview Magazine. The same about Neen. Ii's a pitty that people in Wikipedia become enemies of what they don't understand: Neen is an idea they own to embrace and of course they should stp pretend that it doesn't exist, that's ridiculous because Neen can be found in so many publication, exhibitions, blogs etc. AlainLa 22:21, 5 April 2007 (UTC) — AlainLa (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]

Comment: "Neen" is more meaningless than most marketing nonsense, and it is not notable. It may have a place elsewhere on Wikipedia, if you can prove noteworthiness. But in the context of visual art there is no indication that the term has any meaning. Bus stop 08:57, 6 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Reply to Comment: How can you say that a conceptual art concept that has been presented as an exhibition at the Gagosian Gallery in NY (one of the most famous art galleries) and invited to such important International art shows such as the Valencia Biennial in Spain, the MU Art Center and Casco in Holland, the Scketch in London etc has no meaning in the context of Visual Arts? Maybe you are not that well informed in the subject? I think that the fact that there has been a book by Charta which is an Italian publisher spesialized on ART BOOKS, settles the matter: Neen is an ART CONCEPT and an art movement.

What other proff you want for that than the fact that artists- who exhibit internationally and are reviewed in art magazines- are members of Neen?.

AlainLa 11:32, 6 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: Twice you (or someone else) have posted the article by that name on Wikipedia and both times it was deleted. The editors of that article not only could not cite sources supporting notability for the term, but also could not convey to the casual reader (me) what the term means. I am not accepting of marketing terms bandied about in the guise of scholarly terms pertaining to art. Bus stop 19:20, 6 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete None-noteable person, poorly sourced article. Jtrainor 21:33, 6 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

keep: Manetas is an important international artist. You should simply Google his name and see for yourself how much he has influenced artists who worked with videogames after him (such as Cory Arcangel and others) as well as more classic school contemporary artists such as Maurizio Cattelan ( who made his Wrong Gallery on Maneta's ElectronicOrphanage and different contemporary painters who are working on the same subjects of tech life as Manetas did long time ago. Also, the article is noy poorly sourced, there are references in all kind of Art World sources as well as NYTimes, Wired Magazine etc. Door64 17:25, 6 April 2007 (UTC) I will work on the reference side too.. the article for Manetas should stay in Wikipedia..Door64 — Door64 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]

keep: Miltos Manetas and his work questions directly the form and content of both what art does and who the artist is in a contemporary context. As a cultural theorist I have cited Manetas' work and philosophy on several occasions in my own work, referring to it as a signal project within digital media cutlure. As others theorists and critics have noted, Manetas' on-going metacritique of Art's persistent rhetorics of representation places his agenda in the shadow of Walter Benjamin's Critique of Art in the Age of Mechanical Reproduction (though for Manetas it our Age of Digital Replication), and the now canonical investigations of depthlessness and reproduciblity of Warhol, Andreas Gursky or Jeff Wall. In this, Manetas' ongoing project is a kind an archaelogy of surfaces --of information as a surface, of painting as a surface, of icons as surfaces-- and their ultimate recombinacy in the terms of this shared status. Further, Manetas' project is to displace (without the ponderous self-reflexion of a "critical cultural producer") the singularity of the artist as the originator of the mastertstroke in a visual landscape for which content is no longer an economy of scarcity. Quite the opposite of turning art into a branding exercise, Manetas' work is hardly unique in exploring the arbitrary signifier, the afterimage, and the autonomy of affect in our liquid modernity. That said, the references to Manetas' CV that others have made is valid, but incomplete. To be clear, I can imagine to appropriate reason for the deletion of Miltos Manetas or Neen from Wikipedia other than the idiosyncratic miscomprehension of their agendas on the part of a single editor. Benjamin Bratton 21:33, 6 April 2007 (UTC) — Benjaminbratton (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]

Delete, the references provided do not appear sufficient to meet notabilty purposes. One of them is broken, another shows a portfolio, but none appear to be significant. --Sigma 7 02:16, 7 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Update - I noticed that the page was recreated multiple times. As a result, I'm requesting a salt. --Sigma 7 02:18, 7 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Here: http://www.manetas.com/press/ you can find as many press references on the work of Miltos Manetas as you need. If you search for him on Amazon you can find his book about Neen ( http://www.amazon.com/Neen-Miltos-Manetas/dp/8881586010/ref=sr_1_2/002-0898025-0774437?ie=UTF8&s=books&qid=1175913997&sr=8-2 ) published by a famous art publisher in Italy. If you search at Artnet you will find a lot about him: http://www.artnet.com/ag/fulltextsearch.asp?searchstring=Miltos+Manetas Here http://www.manetas.com/press/nytimes/index.htm is a NYTimes article about his work on videogames. There are HUDREDS of such sourses online. Are we seriously discussing the FACT that Manetas is a very well known artist? I invited some of the people- all art proffesionals that have worked with Manetas during these years, to write something here so expect some illustrious opinions.Door64

I just add many sources to the Manetas page. check nowDoor64

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was redirected to Bill Bradley (baseball player). REDVERS ↔ SЯEVDEЯ 20:46, 2 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Bill Bradley (baseball)[edit]

Duplicate page exists. See: Bill Bradley (baseball player). Neonblak 20:32, 2 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

No need to list it for deletion. Just redirect the redundant page to Bill Bradley (baseball player). --Tony Sidaway 20:40, 2 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was speedy close as disruption. We have no evidence that Lagunabeacher (talk · contribs), Danielle at MTV Europe (talk · contribs), Carla at MTV Europe16 (talk · contribs) work for MTV, or that what they claim about the subject of this article is true, and given the regularity of these nominations, and the single-purpose accounts, it seems more likely that this is just the work of a single person intent on causing disruption rather than a genuine attempt to discuss whether Wikipedia should have an article on a subject. Uncle G 22:39, 2 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Lauren Conrad[edit]

If Daniel Brandt can go to so much effort to get rid of his article, then I will on behalf of the subject of this one. I work for MTV Europe, and she's specifically requesting deletion of this. She claims "she's not a proper celeb", i.e. not notable enough for your standards. Danielle at MTV Europe 20:49, 2 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy close Disruptive nomination in violation of WP:POINT. FrozenPurpleCube 20:55, 2 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy keep this is the exact same reasoning for the last AfD and that resulted in Speedy keep. IrishGuy ^talk 21:32, 2 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per above. Georgia guy 21:43, 2 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep ditto malatesta 21:53, 2 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy keep Lauren Conrad seems perfectly notable to me. Acalamari 22:16, 2 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy keep. Per IrishGuy, this iis a textbook example of speedy keep. Straight from WP:CSK: "nominations of the same article with the same arguments after they were strongly rejected." Mwelch 22:18, 2 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was speedy delete by DragonflySixtyseven. WjBscribe 22:07, 2 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Wiitard[edit]

Neologisms consisting of dictionary definitions and unverifiable usage claims. No reliable sources cited whatsoever. Dancter 21:12, 2 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been added to the list of CVG deletions. Dancter 21:18, 2 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was No consensus - default keep --Bubba hotep 12:17, 8 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Doubble Troubble[edit]

I will admit that I don't know much about the juggling world. Possibly these two are very famous within that world. The article reads like promotional material and was, in fact, originally written by someone associated with them (see talk page for details). Google doesn't seem to have much and the book referenced appears to be self published by this website. IrishGuy ^talk 21:26, 2 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, NN, vanity. RJASE1 ^Talk 21:38, 2 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. It seems to me that if we have world champions/record holders in other domains, juggling seems to be perfectly reasonable. Juggling may not be high-profile, but it seems to have a recognized international body supporting it. Reasonable media presence. Rookwood^{Dept. of Mysteries} 23:25, 7 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

A RESPONSE This juggling act is just as important a listing as other juggling acts that are on wikipedia such as Passing Zone, another juggling duo. Doubble Troubble can be found on IMDB as producing two feature films. Their debut film Olive Juice, which was added to Wikipedia by someone else, even states how the film was one of the most important independent films to come out of Florida. In addition, search through the International Jugglers assocaition and you will see their competition records as well as their current standing as Ring Passing World Record Holders... enough alone to warrant entry into Wikipedia. The articles is also written very concisely and objectively and is less of a promotional page than that of Passing Zone. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by RichardBrooksbank (talk • contribs) 20:26, 5 April 2007 (UTC).[reply]

In ADDITION I believe also that the Book mentioned "Virtuosos of Juggling" was written by juggling historian Karl Heinz-Zeithen and published by Renegade Juggling, both independent and not associated with Doubble Troubble. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by RichardBrooksbank (talk • contribs) 20:29, 5 April 2007 (UTC).[reply]

Keep The sources mentioned above do an adequate job of asserting notability. –Pomte 01:39, 8 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was Delete --Bubba hotep 12:13, 8 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Reveille (musical group)[edit]

Unnotable college a cappella group; fails WP:MUSIC; delete. Dylan 21:37, 2 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete fails WP:MUSIC. No sign of significant third-party coverage.Pascal.Tesson 18:48, 6 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Per above. Non-notable student organization. Could probably be speedied. Rookwood^{Dept. of Mysteries} 23:02, 7 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was DELETE as per Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Freelancer: Combat Evolved. CambridgeBayWeather (Talk) 01:08, 4 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Freelancer:Combat evolved[edit]

Non-notable Freelancer mod. Jobjörn (Talk ° contribs) 11:26, 3 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete but not for the reasons above: this isn't a forum game but rather a mod for an action game (Halo 2). It's not an especially prominent mod, though, and this article is both OR and hopelessly muddled, which is the primary reason to discard. Collabi 10:21, 3 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- That's right, I was mistaken. I have edited the reason above to reflect the actual situation. It's still non-notable and should be deleted, though. Jobjörn (Talk ° contribs) 11:26, 3 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  - No, it gets better. It's a Halo (video game series) mod to Freelancer (computer game). Wooah. Jobjörn (Talk ° contribs) 11:28, 3 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been added to the list of CVG deletions. — Kaustuv Chaudhuri (via) 13:57, 3 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
An Invisionfree forum for a website, 507 mod databases being the only other web mentions, text looking like its been copied and pasted from somewhere, and the fact it has been deleted before doesn't look promising. I haven't always, but in this case I agree with the nominator. Delete. CaptainVindaloo ^{t c e} 17:20, 3 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Have we disagreed in the past? Due to your findings, I'll slap a speedy tag on it now. Jobjörn (Talk ° contribs) 17:27, 3 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. If you have any questions, please contact me at my talk page. Ian Manka 00:25, 8 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

1810s (Mormonism)[edit]

While I am uncertain of the encyclopedic value of all these YYYYs (Mormonism) articles I am only nominating these two. Even to the subject of Mormonism these are of questionable value - the LDS church was not organized until 1830, and at the earliest the movement could be said to have begun in 1820 with the First Vision. Detailing the activities of Joseph Smith (or others) prior to that date really can't be said to be part of the whole Mormonism movement. Arkyan  ^(talk) 23:18, 2 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Non-trivial information in those pages can be (and probably are) included elsewhere. Jobjörn (Talk ° contribs) 23:33, 2 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Merge any relevant information into the appropriate biographies. Crotalus horridus (TALK • CONTRIBS) 00:55, 3 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. Content like Joseph Smith getting surgery on his left shin may be relevant to his bio, but it certainly doesn't need to be part of a separate time line article.--Kubigula (talk) 15:41, 7 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. If you have any questions, please contact me at my talk page. Ian Manka 00:22, 8 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Purpleskirt[edit]

Unssourced, local neologism. Dictionary definition, to boot. Contested prod, de-prodded by anon without comment. eaolson 23:23, 2 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. --Lmblackjack21 14:37, 3 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Note from author (Martin_Wheeler) -- Glastonbury resident; academic; and publisher. Neologism it most certainly is; and neologisms don't easily or quickly enter the written record. For non-residents of this town, terms like 'the purpleskirt effect' or 'the purpleskirt community' are probably a little mystifying; but for the sociology researchers from Japan, Canada, Germany who have investigated the community in recent years whilst preparing their theses [usually available as monoprints only], these terms are valid and meaningful. Personally, I've been aware of the usage for the past ten years at least. It's a moot point whether the clothing store of the same name in L.A. picked up the term or not from a visit to the town (many film and TV 'personalities' visit the town from London specifically to buy 'purpleskirt' items in the town's various clothing boutiques).

Comment. Neologims aren't generally appropriate for WP. See WP:NEO. This term gets no hits in Google, let alone any theses in Google Scholar. eaolson 15:27, 7 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Neologism of little importance no matter how we look at it. I would also like to question the above assumption that researchers from Germany, Japan and Canada are all superinterested in the sociology of purple skirts in an 10000 people small town, chakra or no chakra. If these theses do exist, then their title and abstract (at least in Canada) are publicly available so it should not be a problem to tell us what theses you're talking about. Pascal.Tesson 18:44, 6 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Martin Wheeler You're obviously hell-bent on deleting the article -- so go ahead. You just lost a contributor who preferred to give Wikip(a)edia the benefit of the doubt in the rows raging about the competence of its edtors -- but I now see that my academic colleagues are absolutely correct.

I leave you the following to ponder over (extract from one of the most highly respected academic lists):

>> Wikipedia welcomes experts as authors, but contributions are >> judged on their merit, not on their origin. I think the >> opposite model is worth trying, if only to understand why it >> doesn't work. > > CZ also judges contributions on merit, not origin--perhaps moreso than > Wikipedia does, since Wikipedians so often poorly judge the contributions of > people outside their inner circle. But when there's an intractable > dispute, and a content decision has to be made, it won't be made by a > 17-year-old "administrator," but by a real expert. Moreover, because we > actually recognize real-world expertise, instead of ignoring it, we can > enlist experts to approve articles. Wikipedia can't do so, because it is > anathema to Wikipedians to recognize expertise officially.

Says it all, really, doesn't it? (And btw -- I don't have to justify my credentials to people like yourself, and the innuendo of your remarks. If Canadians have such easy access to thesis abstracts, it should be a piece of cake for you to trace the afferent theses. One of them, is, in fact, from a Canadian University.) A bon entendeur, salut. Martin Wheeler

Delete per nom. No sources provided to establish notability. By all means, take it any other forum of your choosing that doesn't require citation of sources. - Aagtbdfoua 13:56, 7 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Fails WP:NEO and WP:RS. And Martin, please review WP:CITE, which states "Attribution is required for direct quotes and for material that is challenged or likely to be challenged. Any material that is challenged and for which no source is provided may be removed by any editor." If these theses do exist, then the burden of citation lies with the editor who introduces the information. If this truly is a notable sociological phenomenon that has been documented in multiple sources as you claim, then it has a place in WP. Easy as that. Caknuck 22:17, 7 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

A quick glance at the top 100 Google hits reveal none that use the phrase in question in the manner described in the article. Caknuck 22:20, 7 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. If you have any questions, please contact me at my talk page. Ian Manka 00:18, 8 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

David L. Smith (artist)[edit]

This page does not assert notability on a scale deserving of an encyclopedia. He may be well known on a local scale but an artist should be world famous or at least nationally famous in order to have an article.--Joebengo 23:43, 2 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete I agree that I don't see any real claim of notability here. He seems to have had a successful career as a artist, but not perhaps much beyond the normal for a art professor. Brianyoumans 00:31, 3 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comments: Does he pass the Google test? Is this orginal research? Is there any way to Keep and Clean up the article with sources? I don't know enough about the subject to fix it myself. Bearian 00:16, 5 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

He doesnt pass the Google test (I checked) and the only thing about him is how he teaches art at the art institute.--Joebengo 05:10, 6 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I did some research and found that the user who created this article attended the school where this art teacher taught during the same time. Possibly this was a former art teacher of the user who created the article.--Joebengo 18:51, 6 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment leaning keep but without proper sources, it's a bit hard to argue. Pascal.Tesson 18:40, 6 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Inadequate assertion of notability. And seeing how Dayton isn't exactly a hotbed of art critics and galleries, it's doubtful that the subject is of anything beyond minor local interest. Caknuck 22:10, 7 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. I agree with the comments above. Seems to be only of local interest. Fails google test, so there are no references for us to include even if he were notable. Rookwood^{Dept. of Mysteries} 22:29, 7 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was Delete. This was previously tagged as a PROD and nobody has gotten around to closing it yet; so I am now. Sources (or source if you will) is very trivial and doesn't meet WP:BIO.--Isotope23 16:26, 3 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Abraham Mar Paulos[edit]

Prod expired. The subject looks like a non-notable Bishop of a church, with no outside sources or referneces. I found one source in the The Tribune mentioning, but he was not the subject, just mentioned casually ([58]). A comprehensive search on LexisNexis provided zero results. Anyway, he appears not to fulfill WP:N, and the article reads like a resume or timeline without any context. I say either delete or merge with Mar Thoma Church. Rockstar915 23:41, 2 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Um, the prod was there. No one removed it (until you did when you created this AFD), so you could just contact an admin and let them know. TJ Spyke 03:41, 3 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I found some references to the subject at hand, so I figured I'd let the community decide. Can we keep this discussion on the subject? If you have a comment for me, please leave it on my talk page. Rockstar915 03:48, 3 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Religion-related deletions. -- ⇒ bsnowball 10:23, 3 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, Very notable.

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was Keep per disambiguation page transformation -- Bubba hotep 12:23, 8 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Sharh[edit]

non notable term; apparently means "commentary", but there is no explanation of why this is in any way a special term in Islam. Prod removed. Brianyoumans 23:51, 2 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Please move it to Wikitionary. --Sa.vakilian(t-c) 04:43, 3 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
~~Redirect~~ to Hadith. Smmurphy^(Talk) 05:21, 3 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment At present, the word "sharh" does not even appear in Hadith, except in the directory sidebar. Brianyoumans 06:41, 3 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
strong Keep term is used often in the names of commentaries to hadith collection, the famous Fathul Bari fi Sharh Sahih al Bukhari for example. I needs at the very least to be there as a disambiguation page, and given that, it makes sense to add the template and a short explanations, witch is what we have at the moment.--Striver - talk 11:20, 6 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Btw, a alternative transliteration is "Shahr". --Striver - talk 11:34, 6 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, but there is no point in moving to wikitionary yet because there is no definition to move. Could probably be speedied per CSD A1, no context. Rookwood^{Dept. of Mysteries} 15:23, 7 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. I have made it into a disambiguation page because it doesn't deserve to be an article since there was no content. I think it is useful in this regard and if someone finds enough literature to write an article about the subject of shahrs then they can later. gren グレン 03:27, 8 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

This makes a lot of sense. I like it now. Smmurphy^(Talk) 03:55, 8 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was keep. - Mailer Diablo 05:10, 7 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Firehouse Subs[edit]

Sorry for the lack of a reason, I was testing WP:TWINKLE, anyway this article lacks notablity as far as I can tell, and at the very least does not assert notability with citations. —— Eagle101 ^{Need help?} 00:50, 3 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep; a major regional fast-food chain is notable. Crotalus horridus (TALK • CONTRIBS) 00:54, 3 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - It took less than 3 seconds of googling to find multiple independent 3rd party published works about this chain that has almost 100 locations. [59] [60] [61] [62]. It likely took much more time to create this AfD. --Oakshade 01:10, 3 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - It's a well-known chain, and although it should certainly be better sourced, the external link does provide a start on notability, verifiability, etc. ◄Zahakiel ► 19:29, 3 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was redirect to Jim Gary. (Apologies to anyone waiting on this to get resolved, looks like it got lost in the shuffle somehow!) Arguments by single-purpose accounts aside, there is simply no convincing argument here that the term passes either WP:NEO or WP:N. What to merge is an editorial decision, history will be left intact for those interested in doing so. Seraphimblade ^{Talk to me} 23:15, 1 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Garysauruses[edit]

non notable term in the visual arts Bus stop 19:13, 9 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

disagree strongly --- No one has suggested that this term is meant to identify a new category of visual arts. This is a unique term coined by an art critic in England to describe significantly notable sculpture that has received recognition among fine art circles and museums as well as being featured frequently in the New York Times, other papers of its caliber, and the Smithsonian Magazine. The unique work has been reviewed in media around the world. The justification given in the suggestion for deletion reminds me of the term "impressionist" being applied by an art critic to the work of a handful of painters who were showing outside of the establishment in Paris, this being the way terms originate, and its uniqueness alone ought to make an article about it appropriate. Not sure of the procedure to follow, so am requesting the removal of the prod template as advised previously, for further consideration. Will return to complete that task if that is necessary -- please advise. 83d40m 23:40, 9 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Response to above -- Yes, it is a unique term, and it belongs uniquely in the article on Jim Gary. We are not debating the notability of the artist Jim Gary. That article exists and this term is mentioned in that article. It is a relatively insignificant term and no purpose is served by having an additional article on it. It does not apply to anything besides some of the sculptures of Jim Gary. Therefore it belongs primarily in that article. It certainly does not deserve a separate, freestanding article devoted to just that one relatively insignificant term. Bus stop 00:52, 10 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Per WP:NEO, Wikipedia should not be the means of publicizing a coined word that is not yet in general circulation. Only 179 Google hits for this word, which suggests the term is not notable. Agree with Bus stop that the term 'Garysaurus' can reasonably be used in the Jim Gary article but doesn't need its own article. I believe that 83d40m who says 'disagree strongly' above should be viewed as voting 'Strong keep' in our usual terminology. He can correct me if I'm wrong.EdJohnston 03:11, 11 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment That would be a more conventional way to phrase it, but then we don't really vote here. zadignose 23:08, 16 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - is not categorised as a term or a word. As an article on a series of artworks it establishes notability easily. Both objections above seem misconceived to me, although the first sentence should be rewritten, like most WP leads using the word "term". It could be merged to his main article with no loss though. I'm fine with the rename to C20th Dinosaurs proposed below also. Johnbod 04:24, 11 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Response to above -- An article on a series of artworks? The man's surname is Gary, and the artworks are sculptures of dinosaurs. Add one to the other and you get "Garysaurus." How does this free standing article serve any purpose? I've just written the article. This is a reasonable substitute for the article: The man's surname is Gary, and the artworks are sculptures of dinosaurs. Bus stop 04:42, 11 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

There are a ton of articles on individual artworks and series thereof. Warhol's Campbell Soup Can works are one of VA's few featured articles. The current version of the article is much better than your proposed replacement. Everything you say would apply to "Rembrandt's etchings", which is unfortunately an article we don't have. Johnbod 13:15, 11 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: There are other issues too. Jim Gary's art is not considered serious. It is entertaining. It is whimsical. I am not trying to take a snobbish, remote, inaccessible attitude to art. But when art doesn't address issues currently in art it tends to remain irrelevant. And that gets us back to the term Garysaurus. The term, and the article, is just an attempt to raise these dinosaurs to the level of relevant and serious art. Notice how the post by 83d40m first makes the point that "No one has suggested that this term is meant to identify a new category of visual arts." After that denial, all references are to "serious" art. First it is pointed out that the term was coined by an art critic. Then, the term is compared to the term Impressionism. Impressionism is clearly in the category of the most serious art of it's time. No offense is intended to 83d40m, but there is a contradiction in that post. If the term is not meant to "identify a new category of visual arts," then what is it trying to accomplish? Why the references to the art critic, and why is the term compared to the important art historical term, Impressionism? I think this is an instance in which editors should make value judgments and not blindly follow precedents that are not really precedents. Anybody can make a nickname for anything. There are other factors that apply. Has the importance of the critic coining that term been established? (I believe it says the term was coined in 2006.) Has it experienced any more widespread use? Bus stop 14:05, 11 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Merge to Jim Gary, but please leave out the silliness about how the term creates a new "pseudophylum". —Cel ithemis 05:06, 11 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect or Merge to Jim Gary. I personally think the "Garysauruses - a neologism" section that already exists in that article is probably sufficient and no further merge is necessary. However, I have no objection if someone wants to expand it.--Kubigula (talk) 02:42, 13 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Article and Redirect to relevant section This section of the Jim Gary article is already sufficient for the notability of the term, which doesn't apply in any broader sense and doesn't require a unique article. zadignose 23:08, 16 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Strong keep -- if that is the preferred term for my position -- is based upon the fact that these sculptures by Jim Gary are distinctive and only one category of his work... the fact that Jacques Lipchitz, a sculptor of international acclaim, admired his formal work makes the comments of bus stop seem rather hollow -- this is the encyclopedia that has an article on the Office Assistant feature included in Microsoft Office 97 software, named Clippit or Clippy -- how then could an article about a distinctive group of sculptures by a sculptor recognized by the New York Times, Smithsonian, the L A Times, the Washington Post, Time magazine, ABC This Week, that have traveled the world being displayed in fine art museums as well as museums of natural history be considered too trivial to be included in it? The term provides ten pages of results from Google, including other on-line encyclopedias. 83d40m 02:55, 19 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: Again -- we are not discussing the notability of Jim Gary. We are discussing the term that this article is about. The term was mentioned once in an article on February 14, 2006. Has the term ever been used again? It says in the Jim Gary article that, "The apt name for his dinosaur sculptures has begun to be used by others." Which others? Who else has used the term since it's first instance of use? I feel that the term is just a nickname used by a very small circle of people who knew Jim Gary personally. Their use of the term, if I am right, is just an expression of affection for the memory of the man. If I am right, it is of no consequence beyond a very small circle of people, and it therefore has no place in an encyclopedia. Unlike Impressionism, it does not convey any meaning. It is only a reference to the dinosaur sculptures of Jim Gary. That is mentioned in the Jim Gary article. How is that important enough to warrant an article? Impressionism refers to many artist's work. The concept of Impressionism is linked in the writings of many prominent commentators to prevalent thoughts that were in the air at the time. How does the term that this article is about, shed light on anything, other than provide us with a nickname for some of the sculptures of one artist? Bus stop 04:33, 19 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep would be my vote for the article on Garysauruses. The similarity of having an article on the Office Assistant feature included in Microsoft Office 97 software that is separate from the article on Microsoft Office 97 seems quite clear to me -- if Clippy can have a separate article, why not Garysauruses? I bet there are thousands of examples we could find of articles on something already contained in another article -- but with discussion of only that aspect -- are we running out of space, eliminating trivia, or paring down entries? Should we dump Clippy next? These sculptures are only one part of his work, but quite different from the rest, and seemingly worthy of note separately.—The preceding unsigned comment was added by 65.196.169.194 (talk • contribs) 17:28, 19 April 2007 (UTC).[reply]

Comment. There are certainly thousands of articles on WP that probably don't belong. However, the fact that other questionable articles exist is not generally a reason to keep something. No one is saying that there shouldn't be coverage of these sculptures on WP; I just don't think it needs to be in a separate article from Jim Gary, whose article is pretty short. Also, the name "Garysaurus" is pretty clearly a neolgism or a protologism.--Kubigula (talk) 17:55, 19 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - I agree with Johnbud - The various critters designated by this term were renowned around the world in popular culture, natural history circles, and at fine art venues such as fine arts museums, formal botanical gardens, and national art shows. They were a later portion of the work of Jim Gary, qualifying as a phase or series. First, his formal work gained the recognition and admiration of the most highly respected sculptors (such as Jacques Lipchitz) and the judges of art shows and venues, long before he began to book his Jim Gary's Twentieth Century Dinosaurs as a traveling exhibition. Major portions of his works are quite "serious" contrary to Bus Stop's mistaken comment.... which demonstrates that he has not become familiar enough with Gary's work to understand that the critters Gary made were a portion of his works as distinctive and authentic as Alexander Calder's circus... as noted in WP,"Soon, his "Cirque Calder" (now on view at the Whitney Museum of American Art) became popular with the Parisian avant-garde, and Calder began charging an entrance fee to see his two hour show of a circus that he could pack into a suitcase." Just taking the links provided at the main article for Jim Gary provides access to articles such as the Washington Post, which provides discussion of his formal work also. His life sized work, Universal Woman, alone astounded most sculptors who examined it -- his versatility was demonstrated in life sized stained glass figures, abstracts, furniture, and architectural works for buildings as well. Gary's critters were an extensive portion of the artist's work. The construction of them was as masterful as the use of materials to create his most famous figures. It makes sense to me to recognize the distinctiveness of the formal work from the joyful critters that he first built for himself and later used as a traveling exhibition he rented out for his basic income, closing his gallery and concentrating upon his formal works and the new critters he built for the exhibition. I believe further, that Bus Stop's comment, Jim Gary's art is not considered serious. It is entertaining. It is whimsical... must relate only to the Garysauruses -- which becomes the justification for a separate discussion of them in a separate article.... When I lived on the East Coast I was a member of a prominent art association in New Jersey and served as one of the judges for its annual show where I saw Gary's abstracts and figurative works take the first prizes in sculpture at ours as well as all art shows throughout the New York Metropolitan circuit - consistently - for fifteen years before he began to exhibit the critters. Works that were not serious never won in that sophisticated competition venue! He supported himself through the sale of his sculpture in that same sophisticated market. After I moved to the West Coast I found his work featured there just as prominently at museums and shows. When the owners of his formal works begin to donate it to museums and copyright issues are no longer an issue, perhaps we can feature some of his formal works in the main article -- that will demonstrate the clear differences between the critters and the formal even though his skill as a sculptor is clear in all of his work. Twenty or more Campbell's Soup Cans have a separate article from Andy Warhol, so why shouldn't thirty or more Garysauruses have a separate article? ----- I would approve a change of the title of this article to 'Twentieth Century Dinosaurs' (Gary's own trade term for the exhibition which gets 546 results on a Google search) if Bus Stop's concern is just the fact that the new word coined by an art critic in London was first published as part of an obituary of Jim Gary in the UK when news of his death shot around the world, does not receive so many results. ------ Hummmmm... of consequence only to small group of people who knew Gary personally (?), wonder why there were all those obituaries published around the world? Wonder why all those museums held exhibitions of his work? I think the distinctive work from this phase of Jim Gary's works is worthy of a separate article. - L.V. of L.A. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 67.150.40.107 (talk) 22:44, 22 April 2007 (UTC).— 67.150.40.107 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]
keep and use the trade name sculptor Jim Gary used in all of his dealings for his traveling exhibition -- Twentieth Century Dinosaurs as the title -- what a good idea, I change my vote to this concept, it makes the most sense and should be acceptable to all -- the name is in wide use and it is a precise focus upon one phase of his sculpture. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 65.196.169.194 (talk) 17:43, 23 April 2007 (UTC).— 65.196.169.194 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]

I note that IP 65.196.169.194 has supported "keep" twice. I understand that the second addition was more of a clarification, so it should be styled as a "comment" to make life a little easier for the closing admin.--Kubigula (talk) 21:20, 23 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment -- I raised a question. I don't know if it's been addressed. Has the term Garysauruses been used since it's coining in 2006? The article (the Jim Gary article) says: "The apt name for his dinosaur sculptures has begun to be used by others." Are there any citations of further use, especially in reliable sources, of the term, since it's initial use in 2006? What about the new term -- "Twentieth Century Dinosaurs?" Does it have any citations? I'm just asking what history of use either of these terms have. Bus stop 18:05, 23 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I can confirm that the term Twentieth Century Dinosaurs has been in use widely for twenty-five years of my knowedge -- being the TA name (trading as, or business name) of the exhibition and the identity of the exhibition as presented on all of the banners and adverising of museums and other venues, presented as, Jim Gary's Twentieth Century Dinosaurs. All invoices and payments for the exhibition were under that name. The banner at the Smithsonian used it and used it in their magazine... It was used on all of the ads for the exhibit during all of that time, such as in Washington D.C. and Toyko on the trains, buses, and kiosks and around the world as well as on a hundred thousand t-shirts -- can not address citations for the term Garysauruses, sorry

Comment -- Can you post any links to or instances of any reliable sources in which the term is used? My point is that if the term has no wider circulation then what is the point to an article by that name? Bus stop 19:04, 23 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Your request seems quite vague to me, a little reading of the results at Google might provide what you are seeking and the site for Jim Gary documents all of the sources of published articles, internet features, lots of links, and television reports and programs. The book on Jim Gary cites lots of sources. Your issue is not very clearly stated and you seem to be the only one failing to look into it yourself... With all due respect, if I can find this material, you should be able to also, so let your fingers do the walking... as they say! I believe that wp-editors should not be asking other editors to do what they can for themselves, to make their decisions. I can provide you with my opinions based upon my examination of the issue raised, that you want to delete the article. I disagree with your initiative. Very few other editors are involved in this consideration, the opinions are divided -- no clear desire to delete -- is there a personal agenda here? I would think that without a clear agreement to delete, by default, it should remain. I do agree with another editor that the title might be better as Twentieth Century Dinosaurs, but am okay with either. We are editors for a popular encyclopedia of things of interest to a broad population, not art critics. Twinkies are as important to us as turkey. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 65.196.169.194 (talk) 20:46, 23 April 2007 (UTC).[reply]

Comment. You probably wouldn't make this comment if you had ever read the Wikipedia policy on neologisms, WP:NEO. Please note that the administrator who closes the AfD is expected to follow policy. If your comment basically says WP:ILIKEIT, and 'This term has been used, but not in any places considered to be reliable sources by Wikipedia', your comment will probably have little influence. In any case, your vote as an IP who has never participated outside this AfD is not likely to carry much weight. Either provide the missing information, or provide us a good argument, or your comment isn't very useful. Per WP:V the person who wants the information to be included has to do the legwork. EdJohnston 21:09, 23 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

keep but switch to Twentieth Century Dinosaurs -- I have to agree that this would be a better title for the article. I also believe that the value of the contribution of an editor is more important than the registration status of the editor, taking my clue from the description of Wikipedia itself, "anyone can edit..." and regret another editor's statement that your comment will probably have little influence. In any case, your vote as an IP who has never participated outside this AfD is not likely to carry much weight.. -- I thought we were supposed to encourage new editors. Reliable sources that have used the term Twentieth Century Dinosaurs to describe the critters included in the sculptor Jim Gary traveling exhibition include The New York Times (several decades of use), The Los Angeles Times, the International Herald Tribune, the Washington Post, The New York Sun, The Dallas Morning News, Time Magazine, National Geographic World, Silver Burdett division of Time-Life, Smithsonian Magazine, The Boston Herald, the Tokyo Asahi, the Paris Herald Tribune, the German Lebens Art, The New Yorker, and Sculpture Review; among television broadcasts are ABC News-This week, A&ETV's Walter Cronkite documentary, Dinosaur!, the Discovery Channel, CBS's special on dinosaurs which was hosted by Christopher Reeves, Real People!, The Today Show, New York Views, Good Morning America, Prime Time, Wonderama, To Tell the Truth, That's Incredible!, CNN News, The Electric Company, Ripley's Believe It or Not!; links on the Internet include http://www.belkcollege.uncc.edu/news/dinosaurs.htm and an affiliate of PBS, http://www.njn.net/television/specials/life360/themesjimgary.html , http://www.kafi-benz.com/display.php?id=0001&title=Jim%20Gary's%20Twentieth%20Century%20Dinosaurs&newcnt=1, BOCC Minute : Sep 28, 1993 ; The Tallahassee Museum of History and Natural Science will host the first major showing of "Jim Gary's Twentieth Century Dinosaurs" ... cvweb.clerk.leon.fl.us/finance/board_minutes/minutes/regular/1993/93-09-28.html and expect that these should qualify to meet the standard. So perhaps we can shift the discussion to changing the title of this article to document the works by this sculptor that are a distinct phase of his work with a widely known term to describe that distinct phase. 83d40m 23:32, 23 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment -- Even with the new citation or two I repeat that my vote is to delete. The citations only support the Jim Gary article. There is no reason for a separate article. Jim Gary does not warrant two articles. If he is best known for these sculptures, fine, they can be adequately described in one article. Wikipedia does not have to be used to expand the exposure for an artist whose stature is relatively unimportant. Bus stop 23:41, 23 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

keep with title change to twentieth century dinosaurs -- it has been used for several decades for the unique exhibition -- separate from the rest of his works which continued to be shown and marketed in fine art circles without that name. Smithsonian director said the exhibit brought the largest attendance on record. S2us 20:54, 24 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

keep -- but use Gary's own name of the exhibit would be my vote for keeping this article -- thanks for the invitation to participate in this discussion Bus Stop, I might have missed it. -- I see a distinct difference in the types of work created by Jim Gary and think the exhibit has had a life of its own... quite apart from all the other types of work of this sculptor. All of his work is quite highly skilled and creative, and his similarly life-sized figurative works are well respected. Since they are held in private collections, it will be some time before they begin to be valued correctly. I think his stained glass and figurative works deserve greater coverage in the primary article, but good photographs of the works are needed for that. I think that the exhibit is very well known among hundreds of thousands of fans and millions have seen it in textbooks, magazines, newspapers, movies, and on television so it warrants a separate article. There also are many good Internet links to examples of the critters. I hear rumors that a major institution is interested in keeping the exhibit together once his estate is settled, won't you be surprised. His official site is still operational, being maintained by his long time studio director. Perhaps you can get some information on the figurative works to become more familiar with them. Think that you have underestimated the value of the Gary works -- and especially -- the fine art produced all along his career. If his work was admired at a show by someone such as Lipchitz, a giant among sculptors, and engaged him enough to provide a professional suggestion to Gary for designing an appropriate base to complement the work, it is not likely to be unimportant. Time will tell -- Back to this article, since Gary showed the exhibit all around the world, I would change the title of this article to what he used, Twentieth Century Dinosaurs, -- the name Garysauruses for the dinosaurs is very novel, but just a catchy invention of one art critic. I do not expect it to endure as its real name will, so that is why I would support the title change and keeping the separate article. Khand 22:31, 24 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Not to be mistaken, if the article is kept as Garysauruses, it would be all right with me also... it is the separate article that I think is warranted. And, BTW, I think the documentation above of unregistered editors' frequency with the same ip address is misleading, an ip address often changes for unregistered editors with each dial-up or connection and can not be proof of the entries or lack of entries for that editor. Many good and valuable editors refrain from registering and their contributions are welcomed. Such tactics seem intended to set a bias in the review of this discussion. Khand 22:58, 24 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

After thinking about this for a few days, I have decided that being the one who began the page, if a decision is made to rename the article to 'Twentieth Century Dinosaurs', I should rewrite it to conform to the new title rather than the neologism. I could begin that before the close of the discussion if there is consensus for me to alter the article for further consideration. Khand 21:32, 1 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of notable converts to Christianity